update_ticket_field

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal a key behavioral trait: the tool is guarded by DRY_RUN / ALLOW_WRITES env vars, suggesting it may be a no-op in certain environments. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens if the field or value is invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences, with the core action first and the guard condition second. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite sparse. It explains the env var guard but does not cover potential side effects, required permissions, success/failure indicators, or behavior back to the caller. A tool that updates Jira fields likely has complexities (e.g., required fields, validation) that are not addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning about the parameters. It does not explain what 'field' expects (e.g., ID vs name), the format of 'value', or any constraints. The agent must guess from the parameter names alone, which is insufficient given the schema has no descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Update a single Jira field value.' It uses a specific verb (Update) and identifies the resource (single Jira field value), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_comment (comments) and search_tickets (search). The scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides some usage context by mentioning the guard by DRY_RUN / ALLOW_WRITES, which implies it's a write operation that may be disabled. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the env var guard.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.