jira_mutate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the markup syntax requirement (Jira wiki vs. markdown), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error handling, ordering of multiple operations, authentication needs, or whether operations are atomic. The definition is incomplete for a complex mutation tool.

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 two sentences: the first lists all operations concisely, the second provides the critical markup warning. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview and the crucial markup constraint. It does not explain return values or operation ordering, but the rich schema compensates partially. Lacks some behavioral context but is fairly complete for an initial understanding.

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 high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the markup format requirement for description and comment fields, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the bundling aspect. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 bundles multiple mutation operations (create, update, transition, comment, link, worklog) in one call. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (Jira ticket). This distinguishes it from siblings like jira_comment, which is only for comments, and jira_get (read-only).

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 implies usage when any combination of the listed mutations is needed. It emphasizes bundling (one call) which guides efficient usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like jira_comment for standalone commenting, nor mention when not to use (e.g., read-only scenarios).

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