jira_update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update', implying mutation but offers no details on side effects, idempotency, required permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. This leaves the agent with insufficient understanding of what actually happens when the tool is invoked.

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 extremely concise at 5 words. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it may be too sparse given the complexity of the operation; a sentence about return behavior or common use would improve it. Still, it earns a 4 for structure.

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?

The description covers the basic action but lacks completeness. There is no output schema, yet the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., updated issue details, success confirmation). It also omits constraints like partial vs full replacement or validation. For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, more context is needed.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description itself does not add any parameter information beyond the schema. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high. The schema's description of 'fields' is vague ('Object containing the fields to update'), but that is a schema issue, not a description issue.

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 as 'Update an existing Jira issue'. It uses a verb+resource structure and is distinct from siblings like jira_create_issue (creation) and jira_get_issue (retrieval). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar update tools (none exist in siblings), so it gets a 4 rather than 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for modifying existing issues only, nor does it direct the agent to jira_create_issue for new issues or jira_get_issue for reading. The description is purely functional with no usage context.

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