atlassian-browser-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the return format ('JSON string representing the created comment') and raises exceptions for read-only mode and client unavailability. The destructiveHint annotation already indicates mutation, but the description elaborates on error conditions, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.

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, Args, Returns, Raises) and uses only essential sentences. However, the Args section redundantly repeats schema information, slightly reducing efficiency. The core purpose is front-loaded effectively.

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 moderate complexity, the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameters (via schema), behavioral traits (returns and exceptions), and the presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. With annotations providing destructiveHint and the description adding error context, all necessary information is addressed.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the parameter explanations verbatim in the Args section, adding no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 specific action ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to a Confluence page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'confluence_reply_to_comment' which has a different purpose. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 through the action statement but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'confluence_reply_to_comment' for threaded discussions. It mentions a prerequisite ('If Confluence client is unavailable') in the Raises section, which offers some contextual awareness but not proactive usage direction.

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