update_ticket

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the issue type conversion limitation. Other important traits like whether updates are additive or replace, permission requirements, and side effects are not addressed.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second warns about a critical limitation. Front-loaded and no redundant information.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description lacks essential behavioral context (e.g., whether updates are incremental or full replacements, required permissions) and does not explain return values or error handling.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify behavior for fields like labels (replace vs append) or interaction between parameters.

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 clearly states 'Update fields of a Jira ticket', which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like transition_ticket (status changes) and get_ticket (read).

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?

Only minimal guidance: warns about the issue type conversion limitation and suggests using the UI 'Move' action instead. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like transition_ticket or create_ticket.

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