atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies that both issue and epic must already exist ('existing issue'), mentions read-only mode constraints in Raises, and indicates it returns an updated issue object. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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-loads the core purpose. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the Args section slightly repeats schema information.

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 moderate complexity, destructive nature, and the presence of both input schema (100% coverage) and output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core operation, parameters, return value, and error conditions, though could benefit from more usage context.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters with patterns and examples. The description adds minimal value by naming the parameters in the Args section but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema.

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 ('Link an existing issue to an epic') with precise resources (issue and epic). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'jira_create_issue_link' by focusing specifically on epic linking rather than general issue linking.

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 like 'jira_create_issue_link' for non-epic links or other Jira linking methods. It mentions prerequisites in the Raises section but doesn't offer proactive usage context.

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