Edit Tracker field

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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. Beyond that, the description adds two useful behavioral details: partial PATCH semantics ('only the fields set in body are changed') and optimistic locking via the version parameter. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the annotations lower the disclosure bar.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then patch semantics, then concurrency guard, then return value. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 100% schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the key remaining context: it is an org-global field edit (distinguishing it from local fields), it is a partial update, it supports optimistic locking, and it returns the updated definition. It does not mention permission requirements, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already fully documents field_id, body, and version (including version's optimistic-lock role and body's localized name/options structure). The description repeats the version locking purpose and body partial-update semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Edit an org-global issue field.' The qualifier 'org-global' implicitly distinguishes it from the local-field sibling (tracker_localfields_update), and 'only the fields set in body are changed' clarifies the PATCH semantics. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the scope does the differentiating work.

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 explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. However, 'org-global issue field' implies this is for existing global fields rather than local fields, and the mention of version for concurrent edits gives implied usage context. This is usage implied by scope, not stated alternatives.

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