jira_update_issue

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=true (idempotent). The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., that omitted fields remain unchanged or that the update may fail on invalid fields). Without contradictions, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, clear sentence. It is front-loaded and concise. However, it could benefit from a second sentence summarizing behavior (e.g., effect on omitted fields) without being verbose.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on required parameters, permissions, or idempotency implications. The schema fills the gaps, so a 3 is fair.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The description only reiterates 'standard and custom fields', adding minimal value over the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'Jira issue', and the scope 'standard and custom fields'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling creation tools like jira_create_issue.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as jira_create_issue for new issues or jira_update_version for version updates. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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