jira_update_issue

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

Beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint=false), the description adds that only specified fields are updated and that the description format is controlled by the 'format' parameter. It does not disclose potential side effects like notifications or permission requirements, but the added context is valuable.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately useful details, making it easy for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The description covers the main updates but omits the 'parent' parameter and does not explain that labels and components replace existing values (though the schema does). No output schema exists, and the description does not address return values or potential errors. Given the tool's 10 parameters, more detail would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'format' parameter's default and the fact that only specified fields are updated, which is not evident from the schema alone. This extra information justifies a higher score.

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 it updates an existing Jira issue by key and lists the supported fields (summary, description, priority, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_create_issue and jira_transition_issue by focusing on updating fields rather than creating or transitioning statuses.

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 implicitly indicates use for modifying issue fields and explicitly notes that only specified fields are updated. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like jira_transition_issue for status changes or jira_add_comment for comments, leaving room for ambiguity.

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