atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation. The description adds valuable context: it specifies the return format ('JSON string representing the created issue object') and error conditions ('Raises: ValueError: If in read-only mode or Jira client is unavailable'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loaded key information. However, the 'Args' section repeats schema details unnecessarily, and the opening sentence could be more concise by integrating the optional features more smoothly.

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 7 parameters), rich schema (100% coverage), annotations (destructiveHint), and output schema (true), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters (via schema), behavior, and error handling, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only briefly mentioning 'optional Epic link or parent for subtasks' in the opening line. It does not provide additional syntax or format details, meeting 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 ('Create a new Jira issue') and resource ('Jira issue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'jira_update_issue' or 'jira_delete_issue'. It also mentions optional features ('Epic link or parent for subtasks'), providing precise differentiation.

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 context through 'optional Epic link or parent for subtasks', suggesting when to use those features. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jira_batch_create_issues' or 'jira_update_issue', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the 'Raises' section.

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