update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when fields are omitted (defaults vs. no change). The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself is minimal on behavior.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by a bullet-like parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters, though it could be more front-loaded with key behavioral context. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but completeness is moderate due to missing usage guidelines and transparency details.

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%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters: 'issue_key' with an example, 'status' with examples, 'assignee' with usage notes, 'priority' with enum values, and 'summary' with clarification. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing Jira issue'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_issue' (creates new) and 'get_issue' (reads), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'add_comment'.

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 tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot update certain fields), or comparisons to siblings like 'add_comment' for adding comments instead of updating issue fields.

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