jira_update_issue

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

Annotation coverage is empty, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'update existing issue' and does not clarify whether updates are partial or full replacement, whether permissions are needed, or what side effects occur. This is too thin for a mutating 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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that earns its place. It sacrifices useful behavioral detail, but as a concise statement of purpose it is well structured.

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?

Despite full parameter schema coverage, this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not clarify update semantics (partial vs full) or prerequisites, leaving an agent uncertain about important call behavior.

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% with each parameter documented, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but none are needed beyond the schema.

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 action (update) and resource (existing Jira issue), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from creation tools like jira_create_issue and from read tools like jira_get_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 phrase 'existing issue' provides clear context that this tool is for modifying an already-created issue, distinguishing it from create/get siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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