atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the input format ('Markdown'), mentions the optional visibility parameter with JSON format example, and discloses error conditions (read-only mode, client unavailability). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what specific fields are returned in the JSON response.

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 with the core purpose. However, the 'ctx' parameter documentation in Args adds unnecessary verbosity since context parameters are typically implicit in MCP tools, and the JSON format specification in Returns could be more concise given the output schema 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?

For a destructive operation with good annotations and complete schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It covers the core functionality, parameter expectations, error conditions, and return format. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail the response structure. However, it could better address authentication requirements or rate limiting considerations for a mutation tool.

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 all 4 parameters with descriptions, patterns, and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions Markdown format for 'body' and provides a JSON example for 'visibility', but these details are already covered in the schema descriptions. This meets 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 ('Edit an existing comment'), target resource ('on a Jira issue'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'jira_add_comment' (which creates new comments) and 'confluence_edit_comment' (which is for Confluence, not Jira). 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?

The description implies usage when editing existing Jira comments, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'jira_update_issue' for broader issue edits or 'jira_add_comment' for new comments. The 'Raises' section mentions read-only mode constraints, which offers some contextual guidance but doesn't address tool selection decisions.

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