Jira POST Request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining cost optimization strategies (using jq to reduce token costs), output format options (TOON vs JSON), and practical constraints (avoid attachments due to complexity). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, which would be valuable for a POST tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, cost optimization, output format, common operations). Most sentences earn their place by providing practical guidance. However, the API reference link at the end could be more integrated, and some examples are quite lengthy, making it slightly verbose for a tool description.

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 5-parameter POST tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, parameter usage, and behavioral aspects like cost optimization. It provides concrete examples for common operations. However, it lacks information about authentication, error responses, rate limits, and what the return values look like, which would be important for a creation tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the practical use of parameters: it provides concrete examples of path endpoints, emphasizes the importance of jq for cost optimization, shows body structures for common operations, and explains outputFormat implications. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for queryParams.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create Jira resources' with the verb 'Create' and resource 'Jira resources'. It distinguishes from siblings like jira_get (read), jira_delete (delete), jira_patch/jira_put (update) by specifying creation operations. The examples reinforce this with create issue, add comment, add worklog, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for creating Jira resources via POST requests. It distinguishes from alternatives by naming sibling tools (jira_get, jira_delete, etc.) and specifying this is for POST operations. The 'Common operations' section gives concrete examples of appropriate use cases like creating issues, adding comments, and transitioning issues.

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