updateJiraIssue

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Updates an existing issue' with no details on side effects, partial vs full updates, permissions, or return behavior. This is severely under-specified for a mutation tool.

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 a single, direct sentence that immediately states the action and target. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 that the tool updates an existing issue with multiple mutable fields and no output schema, the description is far too terse. It fails to mention whether updates are partial or full, what happens on success, or any constraints like required transitions for status changes. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The phrase 'provided details' adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the high schema coverage allows a baseline of 3.

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, matching the tool name and distinguishing from create/list/comment sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or list the updatable fields, so it doesn't reach 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?

The description implies usage for modifying existing issues, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus createJiraIssue or addJiraComment. It lacks any mention of alternatives or exclusions, making the usage context only implicit.

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