jira_fields_manage_options

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

The description discloses the actions (add, update, reorder) and the return format {success, field_id, context_id, action}, which is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (false). It does not go into deeper side effects but is adequate 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 concise, using two sentences plus a return format line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a prerequisite step, making it efficiently informative.

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 presence of a comprehensive input schema and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a straightforward custom field options management tool. The return format is summarized, and the prerequisite step is included.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter is described in detail within the input schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to add, update, or reorder options for a custom field. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_fields_get_options by suggesting its use first.

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 a clear usage guideline: use jira_fields_get_options first to see existing options. This helps the agent know when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for deleting options), which prevents a perfect score.

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