atlassian-browser-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It explains the versioning behavior ('If the attachment already exists (same filename), a new version is created'), which is crucial for understanding the tool's effect. It also mentions the 'minor_edit' parameter's notification implications. However, it doesn't discuss authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bulleted list of use cases is helpful without being verbose, and the Args/Returns sections are clearly separated. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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 complexity (destructive operation with versioning), the description provides excellent context. It explains the core behavior, use cases, and key implications. With comprehensive annotations (destructiveHint), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adds just the right amount of contextual information without redundancy.

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 provides comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal additional value by mentioning the versioning behavior for 'file_path' and the visibility of 'comment' in attachment history, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what's in the schema.

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 ('Upload an attachment') and target resource ('to Confluence content (page or blog post)'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'confluence_download_attachment' and 'confluence_upload_attachments' by focusing on single file upload with versioning behavior.

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 clear usage contexts ('Attaching documents, images, or files to a page', 'Updating existing attachments with new versions', 'Adding supporting materials to documentation') and mentions the versioning behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'confluence_upload_attachments' (plural).

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