atlassian-browser-mcp

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

While annotations provide destructiveHint=true, the description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it emphasizes permanence ('cannot be undone'), clarifies scope ('ALL its versions will be permanently deleted'), and provides practical warnings about irreversible consequences. This complements rather than contradicts the 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 perfectly structured with clear sections: warning, use cases, best practices, and technical details. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and critical information is front-loaded with the permanent deletion warning. The formatting enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 destructive tool with one parameter and output schema, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, explicit warnings, usage scenarios, best practices, parameter guidance, and return value information. It addresses all necessary aspects given the tool's complexity and the existing structured data coverage.

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 fully documents the single parameter. The description adds minimal parameter context (just mentioning 'attachment_id' in the Args section), but does provide useful guidance about obtaining IDs via 'get_attachments' tool. This slightly exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('permanently delete') and resource ('attachment from Confluence'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'confluence_download_attachment' or 'confluence_upload_attachment'. It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 ('Remove outdated or incorrect attachments', 'Clean up duplicate files', 'Delete sensitive information'), best practices for verification and backup, and references an alternative tool ('get_attachments') for checking before deletion. It clearly distinguishes this destructive operation from read-only alternatives.

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