jira_update_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that 'Description is converted from plain text to ADF,' a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention update semantics (e.g., partial vs full update) or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a key behavioral detail. No redundant wording, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the primary action and one transformation but lacks information about return values, whether updates are partial, or any prerequisites. The schema provides parameter constraints, but overall context is incomplete.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning for the 'description' parameter by noting plain text to ADF conversion, which is non-obvious. Other parameters like labels and assigneeAccountId have schema descriptions, but the description doesn't elaborate on them. This partial compensation warrants a 4.

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 'Update editable fields on a Jira issue' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_create_issue and jira_transition_issue by focusing on editing existing issues.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for editing existing issues but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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