update_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the append behavior for implementation_notes and the issue type conversion limitation, but lacks details on whether updates are replacements or merges for other fields, and does not mention authorization or side effects.

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?

The description is a single sentence listing fields, followed by a necessary note about the limitation. No wasted words; front-loaded with purpose.

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?

While the description covers fields and the limitation, it lacks guidance on the update semantics (e.g., whether it replaces or appends) and does not describe the return value, which is missing from both description and output 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds value by highlighting the append behavior for implementation_notes (beyond schema) and the general list of fields. It provides useful context without duplicating schema information.

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 the tool updates Jira ticket fields and lists the specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_ticket, get_ticket, and transition_ticket by focusing on field-level modifications.

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?

The description indicates when to use the tool (updating ticket fields) and includes an explicit limitation about converting issue types, advising to use Jira UI instead. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools for alternative actions.

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