jira_update_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a mutation tool ('Transition'), implying it changes state, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether transitions are reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose with examples, and the second provides usage context. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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 explain what happens on success (e.g., confirmation message, updated issue data) or failure (e.g., invalid status error), nor does it cover prerequisites like required permissions. For a tool that changes system state, more behavioral context is needed.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (issue_key and status with examples). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as status validation rules or workflow constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all 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 verb ('Transition') and resource ('Jira work item') with specific examples of status values ('In Progress', 'Done', 'Blocked'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like jira_assign or jira_comment by focusing on status transitions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for similar operations.

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 implies usage context ('move work items through your workflow') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_set_field (which might also change status) or provide exclusions. It offers general guidance but lacks specific differentiation from sibling tools.

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