update_jira_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that fields are edited and a comment can be optionally posted, but says nothing about partial-update semantics (are omitted fields left alone?), permission requirements, or what errors occur on an invalid issue key. 'Optionally post a comment' is the one helpful behavioral note.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and affected fields come first. It is arguably slightly under-specified rather than wasteful, but structure is clean.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what fields exist but omits partial-update behavior and failure modes. With schema coverage at 100% the parameter side is covered, leaving a moderate behavioral gap.

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 each of the 7 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the assignee empty-string unassign rule and the issue key format. The description only echoes the field list and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Edit) and resource (existing Jira issue) and enumerates the editable fields, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_jira_ticket or complete_jira_ticket. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with transition_jira_ticket or add_jira_comment, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite the sibling set containing add_jira_comment (overlapping with the `comment` field) and transition_jira_ticket (a different kind of mutation). The agent must infer that this is for field edits on an existing issue.

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