jira_update_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Update an existing Jira issue' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether updates are partial (PATCH semantics), permission requirements, error handling, or effect on issue history. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name, especially for a mutation operation.

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 one sentence plus a parenthetical, containing only essential information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence earns its place; no extraneous content.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at custom field usage. However, it lacks guidance on update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full update), error conditions, or return values. The schema descriptions fill some gaps, but overall completeness is acceptable for a straightforward 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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), achieving the baseline score of 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema except indirectly hinting at custom field usage, which is already covered in the customFields parameter description. Thus, no extra value from the description.

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 states 'Update an existing Jira issue' which clearly specifies the action and resource. It also mentions support for standard and custom fields, distinguishing it from creation or transition tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like jira_transition_issue or jira_update_comment, relying on the tool name for 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 implies usage for updating issue fields but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as jira_create_issue (for new issues) or jira_transition_issue (for status changes). The mention of 'use jira_get_fields to discover field IDs' provides guidance for custom fields but not for general usage context. No exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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