update_issue

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying precisely which fields null clears (assignee, description, priority, parent, duedate) and that labels/components REPLACE the entire list rather than append. This is exactly the 'what gets destroyed' context the rubric credits.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then organized as: accepted formats, null semantics, list-replacement warning, and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place; the dense format list is justified because the schema provides zero descriptions.

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 complex tool with an open-ended fields object, the description covers input formats, null-clearing behavior, destructive list semantics, and exclusions with alternatives. The output schema exists, so not describing return values is acceptable per the rubric.

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 0%, so the description bears full responsibility, and it delivers: it defines the value format for every field type (text, Markdown, account id/'me', list, name, YYYY-MM-DD, issue key, raw Jira JSON for customfield_*). The fields object's additionalProperties true is made meaningful by explaining how to handle custom and unknown fields.

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 and resource ('Set issue fields') and enumerates the exact value formats accepted, referencing get_issue as the source of truth. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it cannot change status (transition_issue) or add a comment (add_comment).

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance with named alternatives: 'Cannot change status (use transition_issue) or add a comment (use add_comment).' Also instructs to read the issue first when intending to add to labels/components, since those lists are replaced wholesale.

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