Jira Update Issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the issue is re-read after update, which is useful, but it fails to mention mutation risks, permissions, reversibility, or the irreversible-resolution caveat that the schema hints at.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key outcome—update plus re-read—is stated immediately.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the definition is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not explain when to use this tool versus jira_transition_issue, and it omits behavioral safety context that would be important with no annotations.

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 per the baseline the description need not elaborate on parameters. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already documents 'key', 'fields', and 'description', including important constraints like the resolution warning.

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 identifies a specific action ('Update an issue') and a valuable behavioral detail ('return it re-read from Jira'). It is not a tautology and reasonably distinguishes from jira_create_issue, but it does not explicitly differentiate from jira_transition_issue, which also modifies 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?

The tool description provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The important exclusion that status changes must go through jira_transition_issue appears only in the schema's parameter description, not in the tool description, so the description itself offers no usage direction.

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