jira_update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the tautological implication that a mutation occurs. It does not say whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, what permissions are needed, or how failures behave for a 7-parameter write operation.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here costs the agent needed information instead of saving it.

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?

A write tool with no annotations, no output schema, nested/raw fields (extraFields), and near-zero parameter documentation requires substantially more description than one sentence. Nothing about field-merge behavior, permissions, or error handling is covered.

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 only 14% — just the pass-through extraFields property is documented. The description compensates for none of this, leaving labels, summary, priority, description, and assigneeAccountId with no semantic guidance in either place.

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 states a specific verb (Update) and resource (a Jira issue's fields), so an agent knows it is a field-mutation tool rather than a workflow tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling mutators like jira_transition_issue or jira_add_comment, which also modify an issue.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus jira_transition_issue, jira_add_comment, or jira_link_issues, all of which also change an issue. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing information.

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