jira_update_issue

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses partial-update semantics (only send changed fields) and that descriptions must use Markdown, which is genuine context. However, it omits permission requirements, what happens to omitted fields, reversibility, and error behavior on invalid field keys.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the partial-update rule, then field specifics. The field enumeration largely duplicates the schema, which is minor padding, but there is no wasted preamble.

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 two-parameter mutation tool whose schema is fully documented and which has no output schema, the description covers the key gotchas: partial updates and the Markdown requirement for description. Missing permission/error context keeps it from a 5.

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 both parameters in detail. The description repeats the same field list (summary, description, assignee/accountId, priority, labels) and the Markdown rule rather than adding new semantics, so it earns only the baseline.

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 and resource: 'Update one or more fields on an existing Jira issue'. The scope phrase 'existing Jira issue' implicitly separates it from jira_create_issue and jira_transition_issue, but it never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Provide only the fields you want to change' is a useful partial-update guideline, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to siblings like jira_transition_issue for status changes or jira_add_comment for comments. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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