atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a write operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool can fail in read-only mode (mentioned in 'Raises'), and describes error conditions like missing fields or invalid input. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'success' looks like in the return value.

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 purpose. It's appropriately sized, but the 'Args' section could be more concise by omitting parameter details already covered in the schema. No wasted sentences, though slight redundancy exists.

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 5 parameters), annotations (destructiveHint), and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, errors, and returns, but lacks details on the JSON return format or behavioral nuances like side effects. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description lists parameters in the 'Args' section but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—it repeats parameter names without extra context. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 link between two Jira issues') with the exact resource ('Jira issues'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'jira_remove_issue_link' (which removes links) and 'jira_create_remote_issue_link' (which creates remote links). The verb 'create' 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?

The description implies usage through the tool name and purpose, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jira_link_to_epic' or 'jira_remove_issue_link'. It mentions required fields in the 'Raises' section, but lacks proactive usage context or prerequisites.

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