update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update fields on an existing Jira issue,' which does not disclose behaviors such as whether updates are partial or full replacement, error handling for non-existent issues, authentication requirements, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested fields object) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether updates are partial or whole-field replacements, what happens if the issue does not exist, or what the tool returns. An agent would need additional context to use it correctly beyond the basic purpose.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (issueKey with an example, fields with an example). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. There is no additional clarification or nuance offered by the description.

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 tool's function: 'Update fields on an existing Jira issue.' It specifies a verb (update), a resource (fields on an existing issue), and implies the issue already exists, distinguishing it from create_issue, transition_issue, and assign_issue. This is both specific and non-overlapping with its siblings.

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 only states what the tool does, with no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this instead of create_issue when the issue already exists' or 'use this for field modifications, transition_issue for status changes.' The usage is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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