atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a write operation, which the description's 'Add' action aligns with. The description adds value by mentioning error conditions ('Raises: ValueError: If in read-only mode or Jira client unavailable'), providing context beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., impact on sprint capacity) 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 with sections for purpose, arguments, returns, and errors, making it easy to parse. It's relatively concise, but the 'Args' section could be omitted since it duplicates schema info, and the 'Returns' is vague ('JSON string with success message'). Most sentences earn their place, though minor trimming is possible.

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 (write operation, 2 parameters) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint=false) and output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers basic purpose and errors but lacks usage context, detailed behavioral traits, and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values more specifically.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description's 'Args' section repeats this information without adding new semantics (e.g., format examples beyond schema's 'Comma-separated issue keys'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 action ('Add issues') and target resource ('to a Jira sprint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jira_update_sprint' or 'jira_create_sprint', which could involve similar sprint operations. The title and name reinforce this clarity but lack sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., sprint must exist, issues must be in the same project), exclusions, or related tools like 'jira_get_sprint_issues' for verification. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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