atlassian-browser-mcp

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

The annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a write operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying the return format ('JSON array of results, each with success flag, version or error'), which helps the agent understand error handling and response structure beyond the basic destructive nature indicated by 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. While the 'Args' section could be omitted since it repeats schema information, the overall text is well-organized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 destructiveHint annotation, output schema existence, and complete parameter documentation in the input schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains the batch nature of the operation and return format, though it could benefit from more usage guidance given the sibling tool exists.

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 fully documents both parameters with detailed examples for the 'versions' field. The description adds minimal value beyond restating parameter names and the return format, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('batch create multiple versions'), target resource ('in a Jira project'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'jira_create_version' which appears to create single versions. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'jira_create_version' tool, nor any prerequisites or context for batch creation. The description simply states what it does without indicating appropriate use cases or alternatives.

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