update_issue_field

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive mutation, but the description adds two things they cannot: that some operations require admin rights ('(admin)') and that version-based optimistic locking is enforced via the passed version. It still does not say what happens to fields left unspecified or whether renames are reversible.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and action, followed immediately by the critical locking prerequisite. No filler.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the main behavioural risks (admin scope, optimistic lock) and most updateable fields. Minor gaps: two parameters (readonly, description) go unmentioned and return behaviour is unaddressed, though that is acceptable without an 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?

With only 40% schema description coverage across 10 params, the description compensates by enumerating the updateable surfaces: name, dropdown values, category, order, visibility, and the version lock. It does not mention the readonly or description parameters, which remain undocumented in both places, and 'visibility' is ambiguous between the visible/hidden pair.

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 specific verbs and resource: rename/update a *global* issue field, which implicitly distinguishes it from the local-field siblings (update_queue_local_field) and from create_issue_field. The 'and/or' makes clear it is a partial-update tool. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to modify an existing global issue field. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to alternatives such as update_issue_field_category or update_queue_local_field. The optimistic-locking sentence is operational guidance rather than usage routing.

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