jira_update_issue

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

readOnlyHint=false aligns with the description's mutation verb; no contradiction. The description adds a genuine workflow prerequisite (call jira_describe_edit first) and the add/remove-vs-replace distinction, but says nothing about permissions, partial-update failure behavior, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 compact sentences, the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite/second-parameter caveat immediately after. Zero 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?

For a mutation tool with nested free-form objects, a single annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow prerequisite and the fields/update split. It would be stronger with a note on the destructive scope of the mutation (which fields get replaced) or error behavior.

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 both `fields` and `update` are documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the `update` add/remove semantics, adding marginal value but no syntax or shape detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource ('Update an issue') that clearly separates it from jira_create_issue, jira_delete_issue and jira_transition_issue in the sibling list. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or clarify scope beyond the verb itself.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: call jira_describe_edit first, and use `update` (not `fields`) when changing multi-value fields. That is real when-to-use guidance tied to a specific alternative. It lacks negative guidance (e.g. when to prefer jira_transition_issue or jira_assign_issue), which keeps it from a 5.

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