jira_describe_edit

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that the returned field set is dynamic ("right now") and pre-filtered by workflow/screen. It doesn't mention auth requirements, but for a read-only introspection tool with annotation coverage, this is solid added value.

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?

Two short sentences with the action directive front-loaded ahead of the return-value explanation. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single-param read tool with an annotation covering safety, the description explains both purpose and the nature of the return set. No output schema is needed, and the only minor gap is not distinguishing it from sibling discovery tools like jira_get_fields.

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?

Only one parameter (key) with 100% schema description coverage including a regex pattern and example. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (fields editable on this issue right now), and adds the scoping detail that results are already filtered by workflow/screen. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling jira_get_fields (static field list) or jira_describe_create, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 a clear directive on when to use it: "Call before updating an issue." This ties the tool to the update workflow. It doesn't name alternatives (e.g., jira_get_fields for the unfiltered list) or state when-not to use it, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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