jira_update

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

The description explains the three update behaviors (fields, transition, comment) and gives example field structures. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or side effects (e.g., whether fields are merged or overwritten).

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clear enumeration of update_type options and examples. It is concise with no redundant sentences, though the examples could be slightly more compact.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values or indicate what the tool returns after an update (e.g., updated issue details). It covers the main operations but omits error handling or confirmation of success. Adequate for common use but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The input schema covers 83% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value by showing concrete field update syntax (e.g., priority:{name:'High'}) and how to use transition_id with jira_read. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Fields to update' description.

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 a Jira issue or transitions it to a new status, with three enumerated update types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_create or jira_delete by focusing on modification operations.

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 provides examples for each update type and references jira_read for transition IDs, implying when to use each. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like jira_delete for removing issues.

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