jira_update_issue

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. The addition of 'Exige confirmPublish: true' is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but the description does not disclose side effects, whether fields are merged or replaced, or what happens after confirmation.

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 short, direct, and front-loads the core action in its first sentence. The second sentence adds the critical confirmation requirement without wasted words. It could be slightly more informative, but it is efficient.

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 tool with three required parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, this description is thin. It does not explain how to shape the fields object, what issueKey should look like, or what response or errors to expect. An agent would likely need to inspect other tools or examples to use it correctly.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that 'fields' refers to issue campos and that confirmPublish must be true, but it does not explain the format of issueKey or the structure/keys expected inside the nested 'fields' object.

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 action ('Atualiza campos de uma issue existente') and the resource ('issue existente'), making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create, search, and preview siblings by focusing on updating fields of an existing issue, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, such as jira_create_issue or jira_preview_issue. The phrase 'issue existente' implies this is for existing issues only, but there are no contextual conditions, preconditions, or exclusions stated.

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