update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose an important trait: 'Only the provided fields will be changed; others remain untouched,' which prevents an agent from assuming full overwrite semantics. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, error cases, or what the response contains, leaving some behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds the critical partial-update behavior. Every word adds value.

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 rich parameter schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs: what is updated, which fields are affected, and that updates are partial. It lacks details about the response or prerequisites, but nothing essential is missing for a field-update tool.

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 documents all six parameters clearly (e.g., 'Replace labels with this array,' 'null to unassign'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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: 'Update fields on an existing Jira issue.' The word 'existing' distinguishes it from create_issue, and the scope (fields) separates it from issue transitions or comments. This is unambiguous and actionable for tool selection.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assign_issue or transition_issue. The description does not provide exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints; it only describes what the tool does without framing the selection context.

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