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: true' annotation. It explicitly states the tool can raise a ValueError 'If in read-only mode or Jira client unavailable', which are important operational constraints. It also clarifies that 'started' defaults to current time if not provided, and specifies the return format as 'JSON string representing the added worklog object'. These details enhance the agent's understanding of how the tool behaves in practice.

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 (description, Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the Args section is somewhat redundant given the comprehensive schema, and the Raises section could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient but has minor verbosity in parameter listing.

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 mutation with 6 parameters), the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains key behavioral aspects (defaults, error conditions, return format) and the output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but otherwise it's reasonably complete for agent invocation.

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 documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description's Args section merely lists parameter names without adding meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between 'original_estimate' and 'remaining_estimate', or how 'time_spent' affects issue tracking). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

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 worklog entry') and target resource ('to a Jira issue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'jira_add_comment' or 'jira_update_issue'. The verb 'Add' is precise and the resource 'worklog entry' is well-defined within the Jira context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jira_get_worklog' or 'jira_update_issue' (which might adjust estimates differently). It mentions a read-only mode constraint in the Raises section, but offers no proactive usage context, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools.

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