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 annotation. It explains where the links will appear ('in the issue's "Links" section'), that they're clickable ('can be clicked to navigate'), and mentions specific failure conditions in the Raises section ('read-only mode, Jira client unavailable'). While the destructiveHint=true annotation already indicates mutation, the description provides useful implementation details about the tool's effects.

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 (purpose, details, Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loads the core functionality. While slightly longer than ideal, every section serves a purpose - the Raises section is particularly valuable for error handling. The Args section could be more concise given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 6 parameters), the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter overview, return behavior, and error conditions. With both destructiveHint annotation and output schema present, the description focuses appropriately on contextual information rather than repeating structured data, making it fully adequate 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already provides comprehensive parameter documentation. The description's Args section mostly repeats what's in the schema, though it adds minor context about the 'ctx' parameter. The description doesn't significantly enhance understanding of parameter semantics beyond what the well-documented schema already provides.

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 remote issue link') and resource ('for a Jira issue'), with explicit examples of what types of links can be created ('web links and Confluence links'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'jira_create_issue_link' by specifying it's for remote/weblinks rather than internal Jira issue links.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('add web links and Confluence links to Jira issues') and where the links will appear ('in the issue's "Links" section'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling Jira tools, such as when to use 'jira_create_issue_link' instead for internal issue linking.

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