atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a mutation tool, which aligns with the description's 'Add' action. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, mentioning a JSON string return and error cases for client configuration, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. It avoids unnecessary details, but the inclusion of 'ctx' in Args is redundant for tool invocation and slightly reduces efficiency.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation operation), the description covers the basic purpose, parameters, return, and errors. With annotations providing safety hints and an output schema present (implied by 'Returns'), it is mostly complete, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like permissions or side effects.

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 documentation in the schema (e.g., issue_key pattern, user_identifier differences for Cloud vs. Server/DC). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it 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 user as a watcher') and resource ('to a Jira issue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'jira_remove_watcher' and 'jira_get_issue_watchers'. 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 implies usage for adding watchers to Jira issues but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'jira_remove_watcher' for removal or 'jira_get_issue_watchers' for viewing). It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, such as user permissions or issue states.

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