update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields will be updated'), mentions the conversion capability ('convert to subtask'), and describes the return value ('Returns success confirmation'). It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 perfectly sized at three sentences, each earning its place: first states core functionality, second provides critical usage guidance, third explains return value. It's front-loaded with the most important information and has zero wasted words.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonably well by covering purpose, partial update behavior, prerequisites, and return confirmation. However, it lacks information about authentication requirements, error handling, or what specific 'success confirmation' entails, leaving some gaps.

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 the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'fields' generally and the subtask conversion, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('update fields' and 'convert to subtask') and identifies the resource ('existing Jira issue'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_issue' (creates new) and 'transition_issue' (changes workflow state).

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 clear context for usage ('Use get_issue first to see current values') which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_comment' or 'transition_issue', nor does it provide exclusion guidance.

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