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

Goes well beyond the annotations: explains exactly what is written and what is never touched, why confirmation is required (misrouted work to a team that didn't ask for it), that the account owner is emailed a record including the previous key, and that a PRO plan is required. Nothing contradicts readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true; the one-use confirmation token sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=true, but the schema documents that token explicitly and the underlying end-state change is idempotent.

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?

Around 180 words — long, but every sentence carries distinct information (when, what, exclusions, confirmation rationale, notification, plan gate) and the usage guidance is front-loaded. The density is justified for a destructive config tool with a two-step confirmation flow and several refusal conditions.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions (PRO plan, connected workspace), the exact effect and non-effects, the confirmation flow, failure modes (refusal when unconnected, inability to list projects), and post-change notification. An agent has everything needed to decide, invoke, and recover from edge cases.

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% and the schema itself is unusually detailed (domain format with 'example.com', project key with 'ACC'/'WEB2' examples, explicit warning against display names, case normalisation, and the full two-call confirm-token workflow). The description reinforces the projectKey semantics by noting the tool cannot list projects, but adds no new parameter-level detail, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource (records the Jira project key exports should use, in the Inclusify configuration) and immediately draws the boundary: it 'never' writes to the site or to Jira and 'files no tickets by itself,' which cleanly distinguishes it from any ticket-creating sibling. The title 'Choose which Jira board this site's tickets are filed on' reinforces exactly the outcome the tool produces.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants accessibility findings exported from a site to go to a different Jira project, or is setting one up for the first time') and gives clear when-nots: it refuses until Atlassian is connected and cannot enumerate projects, so the agent must ask the user for the key. It routes around alternatives (browser OAuth flow, reading the key off the board) but stops short of naming sibling tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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