Update Version

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating 'Only fields explicitly provided are modified; other attributes of the version are left untouched'. This clarifies the partial-update semantics, which is important for an update tool. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but the annotation already signals destructiveness, and the description supplements it well.

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 consists of three concise sentences: the first states the primary action, the second clarifies partial-update behavior, and the third lists practical use cases. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 output schema exists and the input schema fully covers parameters, the description does not need to explain return values or each parameter. It covers the core purpose, partial-update semantics, and typical use cases. It could optionally mention prerequisites like the version ID being valid, but the schema already specifies that. Overall, it is sufficient for an AI agent to select and use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by stating that only explicitly provided fields are modified, which explains the default null behavior of optional parameters. This goes beyond what the schema descriptions alone convey, so a slightly higher score is warranted.

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 tool 'Update an existing fix version in a Jira project' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_create_version and jira_batch_create_versions by emphasizing it updates an existing version rather than creating one, and the phrase 'without recreating them' reinforces the distinction.

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 clear usage context by listing typical scenarios: 'archiving/unarchiving versions, renaming, or shifting release dates'. It implies that creation of versions should be handled by other tools ('without recreating them'), but it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for exclusion, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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