jira_update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not deliver. It does not state whether updates are partial (only provided fields change) or full replacement, what happens on invalid status/workflow transitions, or whether the issue must exist. The word 'existing' hints at a precondition but nothing more.

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?

Six words with zero fluff, and the single sentence states purpose directly. However, there is no structural layering or additional context to earn a higher score; this reads as brevity from under-specification rather than careful curation, similar to but better than the 'Process' anti-example.

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 8 parameters, a nested 'customFields' object, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is inadequate. Critical context that an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing: partial-update semantics, behavior on invalid workflow transitions, and what the call returns.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema descriptions are informative ('New status/workflow state (e.g., "In Progress", "Done")', 'Username to assign the issue to'), making the 8 parameters self-explanatory without further elaboration.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing Jira issue'), making the core operation immediately clear. The create/update distinction from jira_create_issue is obvious. However, no sibling differentiation is provided, notably for jira_assign_issue, which overlaps directly since this tool can reassign via the 'assignee' parameter.

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?

The description offers zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not clarify when an agent should update fields directly here versus calling the dedicated jira_assign_issue tool, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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