update_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that fields, transition, and comments can be changed, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or reversibility. Some behavioral context is missing.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists capabilities. Every part earns its place with no waste.

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?

With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides only a high-level overview. It lacks details on return value, parameter formats (e.g., custom_fields), and behaviors beyond listing capabilities.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description groups parameters into categories (standard fields, custom_fields, transition, comment) but does not explain individual parameters. This adds some meaning but not detailed semantics.

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 verb (update) and resource (Jira ticket), and lists the capabilities (standard fields, custom_fields, transition, comment). It distinguishes from siblings like create_ticket and get_ticket.

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 description implies usage (updating a ticket) and lists what can be changed, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like create_ticket or when-not to use. However, the sibling names provide context.

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