jira_assign_issue

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the rest of the burden. It adds nothing about permissions, notification side effects, or the fact that passing a null assignee performs an unassign operation. No contradiction with annotations, but no value added either.

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?

Three words, front-loaded, no waste. It is appropriately terse for a simple two-parameter mutation, though it is on the edge of being under-specified rather than efficient.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema and only a bare readOnlyHint annotation, the description should at minimum note the unassign behavior and any auth/notification implications. None of that is present, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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%, and the schema itself documents both 'key' (with pattern and example) and 'assignee' (noting null unassigns). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the 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?

The description states a verb and resource ('Assign an issue'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it essentially restates the tool name jira_assign_issue and offers no differentiation from siblings such as jira_update_issue, which can also change an assignee.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing an assignable user from jira_search_assignable), and no mention of alternatives like jira_update_issue. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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