jira_update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses partial update behavior, validation against editable fields, and custom field resolution. It does not contradict any annotation. Could add permissions or return value, but provides solid behavioral context.

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 concise sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, update mechanism, and validation constraint. No redundant or vague language.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: partial update, validation, custom fields. Could mention response format or auth requirements, but current detail suffices for common use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining partial update semantics, editable field validation, and custom field usage with an example. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 'Actualiza los campos de un issue de Jira', identifying the specific verb (update) and resource (issue fields). It distinguishes from siblings like jira_create_issue and jira_transition_issue by focusing on field updates.

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 explains partial update semantics ('Solo se envían los campos indicados; el resto queda intacto') and validation behavior ('Valida contra los campos que el issue admite editar'). It implicitly guides usage by contrasting with silent discard, but does not explicitly name alternatives for status transitions.

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