jira_update_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that input is auto-converted to ADF for Jira Cloud and that comments cannot be deleted through this server. However, it omits auth/permission requirements and whether the new body fully replaces the old one.

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-loads the core action, then gives identification, required input, and conversion note in a tight sequence. Every sentence carries information; capitalization draws attention to the required field without redundancy.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers identification, required input, format handling, and a deletion caveat. Only permission/auth expectations and the replace-vs-append semantics of the body are left implicit.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the required Markdown body and the source of the comment ID, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (update) and resource (the body of an existing comment on a Jira issue), and specifies the identifiers needed. It implicitly distinguishes itself from jira_add_comment by requiring a comment ID returned from that sibling, though it does not name the distinction explicitly.

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?

Clear context: update an existing comment rather than create one, and it points to jira_add_comment as the source of valid comment IDs. It does not spell out explicit exclusion cases (e.g., when to add a new comment instead), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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