Convert Jira Issue Type

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real context on top: it uses Jira's bulk move, blocks up to 30s, and returns a taskId with status when the move fails or is still running. It stops short of saying what is lost in the conversion (field values, sub-task links, workflow state), which matters for a destructive 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?

Four tight sentences: purpose and constraint first, then the parentKey decision rule, then mechanism/timeout, then return shapes. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly supplies both return shapes and the 30s blocking behavior, and notes the same-project restriction. One gap: it surfaces a taskId for still-running moves but no sibling tool in this set appears to poll that task, so recovery from that state is unclear.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the parentKey omit/provide rule. The description largely restates that plus the same-project constraint, adding little new meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Convert one or more Jira issues ... to another issue type') plus the distinguishing constraint that keys are preserved and all issues must share a project. This separates it from jcm_editIssue and jcm_transitionIssue without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance for the one ambiguous parameter: provide parentKey to create sub-tasks, omit it to make sub-tasks standalone. It does not name the sibling alternatives (editIssue/transitionIssue) or say when not to use this tool at all, so it stops short of a 5.

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