jira_update_issue

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description earns credit for explaining exactly why destruction happens — labels and components replace entire lists and [] clears them. It also discloses the partial-update contract. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about permission requirements or error behavior.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' signal, and each sentence carries a non-obvious behavioral fact rather than restating the name.

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 destructive 8-parameter mutation with a nested customFields object and no output schema, the description covers the critical semantics: partial updates, list replacement, clearing, and field ID formats. It leaves unanswered what the call returns, but with no output schema that gap is minor.

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 coverage is 75% and the replacement semantics for labels/components plus the Server-username/raw-ID notes are already documented verbatim in the schema descriptions, so the description largely repeats structured data. It adds little parameter guidance 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?

States a specific verb (update), resource (existing Jira issue) and scope (supplied fields only), and explicitly distinguishes itself from jira_transition_issue by noting it does not change workflow status. An agent can separate it from jira_create_issue and jira_transition_issue without opening any schema.

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?

'Requires at least one field' and 'Does not change workflow status' give concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use constraints, implicitly routing status changes to jira_transition_issue. The alternative tool is not named outright, so it stops short of the top score.

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