atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it mentions the 'Raises' section detailing specific error conditions (read-only mode, client unavailability, invalid format) and clarifies the return format ('JSON string'). This enhances behavioral understanding beyond the basic destructive hint.

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 (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loads the core purpose. While slightly verbose due to parameter listing, every sentence serves a purpose and there's no redundant information.

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 has annotations (destructiveHint), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description provides adequate context. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and error conditions, though could benefit from more usage guidance relative to siblings.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description lists parameters in the 'Args' section but adds minimal additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a new Confluence page') and resource ('Confluence page'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'confluence_update_page' or 'confluence_delete_page'. It's unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 name but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'confluence_update_page' for modifications or 'confluence_get_page' for retrieval. No guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios is provided.

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