jira_update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'update fields' without disclosing mutation side effects (e.g., replacing arrays), required permissions, or return values. The schema hints at replacement for list fields, but the description adds none of this context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the verb, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits what the function returns, error conditions, and behavioral details for a mutation tool with 10 parameters. Not complete enough for informed invocation.

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 documents each parameter. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a general usage hint.

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 fields of an existing Jira issue and specifies partial update semantics ('only provide the fields you want to change'), distinguishing it from creation (jira_create_issue) and status transitions (jira_transition_issue).

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 gives clear guidance on partial update usage, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like jira_transition_issue for status changes or jira_assign_issue for assignee changes, nor mention prerequisites (issue must exist).

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