update_ticket_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions validation of transitions, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., notifications), permissions requirements, idempotency, or error handling behavior. This is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes meaningful context.

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's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. However, it omits the return value or success/error behavior, which would be helpful since there is no 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds value by listing common statuses ('To Do', 'In Progress', 'In Review', 'Done'), which provides context beyond the schema's generic description.

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 action ('Update the status of a Jira ticket by transitioning it to a new status') and differentiates from sibling read-only tools like 'get_linked_tickets' and 'get_ticket'. It also provides examples of common statuses, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by mentioning validation of transitions, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it provide alternatives beyond the obvious sibling tools. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or edge cases.

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