put_issue

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description doesn't acknowledge the mutation's destructive nature, permission requirements, or what happens to omitted fields (though partial update implies others remain). No mention of side effects beyond the standard update semantics.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds useful partial-update guidance. No fluff, though the first sentence is slightly repetitive.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotation-derived safety context in the description, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is only minimally adequate. It omits key fields, doesn't explain the 'with' parameter, and doesn't address the destructive nature hinted by annotations.

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 0%, and the description only lists some of the modifiable fields (name, description, status, priority, category, resolution, custom fields) while the schema has many more (tags, test_results, assigned_user_id, fixed_version_id, etc.). It doesn't explain the 'with' query parameter or the path parameter's role, leaving significant gaps for an agent to resolve.

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 and resource ('Update an issue. Update an issue using its unique identifier'), and lists the modifiable fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like post_issue and delete_issue by being an update operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Implied usage: you use this to modify fields you want to change, and partial updates are supported. No explicit when-not-to-use or mention of sibling tools like post_batch_update_issues for bulk edits.

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