jira_set_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage examples. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words or structural issues.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or response format. While the purpose is clear, the lack of transparency and guidelines makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (issue_key, field, value). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing examples of field types ('components, fix versions, labels, environment, etc.'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Update a custom field value') and resource ('on a Jira work item'), with specific examples of field types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'jira_update_status' or 'jira_assign', which also modify work items. The verb 'update' is specific but overlaps with other mutation tools in the sibling set.

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 provides implied usage guidance by listing example fields ('components, fix versions, labels, environment, etc.'), suggesting it's for setting custom field values. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, such as when to choose this over 'jira_update_status' for status changes or 'jira_assign' for assignee updates. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context incomplete.

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