jira_fields_update_context

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, meaning mutation. Description adds that it renames/re-describes and returns {success, field_id, context_id}, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether previous values are overwritten, validation of IDs). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first states action, second states return format. No extraneous information, front-loaded purpose, efficient and clear.

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?

With output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is mostly complete. Could mention prerequisites for context_id, but overall sufficient for a simple update tool.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds little beyond 'Rename or re-describe' which maps to name and description params. No extra semantic or constraints provided.

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?

Description clearly states 'Rename or re-describe a custom field context', specifying the verb (update) and resource (field context). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_fields_create_context (create) and jira_fields_delete_context (delete).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining context_id from jira_fields_get_contexts) or indicate that it should be used instead of create or delete tools.

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