Jira: Bulk Get Editable Fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the endpoint and that it returns field IDs, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or any side effects. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and then provides a clear link to the next step. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is lacking. It does not explain the return structure, specify that it is a read-only operation, or provide enough context for an agent to decide when to use this tool confidently over alternatives. The description is functional but incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining searchText or pagination cursors). It only implicitly references the required parameter 'issueIdsOrKeys' via context.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('bulk-editable field IDs for a set of issues'). It also references the HTTP endpoint and mentions the complementary tool (jira_bulk_edit_issues), which helps contextualize the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like jira_update_issue_fields or jira_list_fields.

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 indicates that this tool should be used to obtain field IDs for bulk editing, and its output is intended for jira_bulk_edit_issues. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives (e.g., for single issue editing). The usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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