Update Jira issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by noting that Jira enforces the caller's permissions and workflow rules, warning that updates can be rejected server-side. It does not say what happens to fields not supplied, what validation errors look like, or the default for notifyUsers.

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 short sentences, mutation stated first, with zero filler or repetition. It is efficiently front-loaded, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

For a nested free-form payload mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description omits the field-map contract, the notifyUsers behavior, and what a successful vs. rejected update returns. The permission/workflow note is helpful but does not fill the gaps an agent needs to call this 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 0% and the `fields` parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties, so the schema alone gives no hint that keys must be Jira field IDs (e.g. customfield_10010) and values must match field-specific shapes. The description says nothing about field key format, value payloads, or what notifyUsers (default true?) controls, leaving the most error-prone parameter undocumented.

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?

Clear verb+resource: "Update an issue's fields" tells the agent exactly the operation and target object. It doesn't differentiate from nearby siblings like jira_transition_issue or jira_rest, so an agent must infer that field edits (not status changes) are the domain here.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of jira_transition_issue (status changes), jira_create_issue, or the generic jira_rest escape hatch. Usage is only implied by the word 'fields'; nothing states prerequisites or exclusions.

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