atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations include 'destructiveHint: true,' which already signals a destructive operation. The description adds context by specifying that it 'Delete[s] an existing Jira issue' and mentions read-only mode and Jira client availability as potential errors, providing some behavioral insight beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on permissions, irreversible effects, or rate limits.

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 concise at four sentences, but the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more integrated into natural language, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 operation, 1 parameter), annotations cover destructiveness, schema fully documents the parameter, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It includes error conditions but could benefit from more context on outcomes or alternatives.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'issue_key' documented as 'Jira issue key (e.g., 'PROJ-123', 'ACV2-642')' including a pattern. The description adds minimal value by restating 'issue_key: Jira issue key' in the Args section, aligning with the baseline score of 3 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 tool's purpose: 'Delete an existing Jira issue.' It specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('Jira issue'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jira_remove_issue_link' or 'confluence_delete_page', which would require a 5.

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. It mentions 'Raises: ValueError: If in read-only mode or Jira client unavailable,' which hints at prerequisites but doesn't offer explicit usage scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to other deletion-related tools in the sibling list.

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