atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating a write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that 'public' uses ServiceDesk API with plain text (not Markdown), mentions the 'Raises' section for error conditions (read-only mode, client availability), and notes that 'visibility' and 'public' cannot be combined. This enriches understanding 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), front-loads the core functionality, and uses bullet-like formatting efficiently. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (mutation with multiple parameters), the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameters, returns, and error conditions. With annotations (destructiveHint), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), no critical gaps remain. It adequately supplements structured data.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra semantics (e.g., Markdown format for 'body', JSON string example for 'visibility', API details for 'public'), but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline 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 ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to a Jira issue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'jira_edit_comment' or 'confluence_add_comment' by specifying the Jira context. It provides a verb+resource combination that is 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 includes implicit context for when to use this tool (e.g., for Jira issues, with Markdown text) and mentions JSM-specific usage with the 'public' parameter, but does not explicitly state when to choose alternatives like 'jira_edit_comment' or 'confluence_add_comment'. It provides clear parameter guidance but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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