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 correctly implies mutation by saying 'update', but it does not disclose potential side effects such as whether updates are atomic, trigger notifications, or require specific permissions. However, since the schema lists 6 writable fields and the description matches, it is minimally adequate.

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 a single short sentence (7 words), which is concise but arguably under-specified. It front-loads the core purpose, but could benefit from a second sentence about behavior or use-case to earn a higher score.

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 has 6 parameters (all with descriptions in schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It informs that the tool updates fields but lacks cautions about replace semantics (e.g., labels replacing existing) or permission requirements, which a JIRA update tool could benefit from.

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 100% — each property has a clear description (e.g., 'New labels (replaces existing)', 'New summary/title'). The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, but with full coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'JIRA 課題のフィールドを更新します' clearly states the verb ('更新') and resource ('課題'), which translates to 'update JIRA issue fields'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like transition_issue which updates status, its specificity is good.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'create_issue', 'assign_issue', or 'transition_issue'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions (like when to use assign_issue instead), or when updating via other means is preferred.

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