atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the operation can fail in read-only mode (via Raises section), requires Jira client availability, and returns a JSON success indicator. This disclosure of failure conditions and output format enhances behavioral understanding, though it doesn't detail side effects like audit trails.

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 avoids redundancy. The opening sentence directly states the purpose. However, the Args section slightly repeats schema information, and the Raises section could be more concise (e.g., combining conditions). Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly minimal.

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 with one parameter), annotations cover safety (destructiveHint), the schema fully documents inputs, and an output schema exists (implied by Returns). The description adds context on failure modes and output format, making it reasonably complete. A minor gap is lack of guidance on link ID sourcing or post-removal effects.

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 the parameter 'link_id' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter definition in the Args section but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., where to find link IDs, format examples, or validation rules). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 ('Remove a link between two Jira issues'), identifies the resource ('link'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'jira_create_issue_link' and 'jira_get_link_types'. It uses precise verb+resource terminology that leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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. While it mentions 'link_id' as required, it doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing link), when removal is appropriate, or how this differs from other link-related operations like 'jira_create_remote_issue_link'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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