atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a mutation tool. The description adds context about Jira client configuration errors (Raises section) and specifies the return format ('JSON string with success confirmation'), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail side effects (e.g., whether removal is permanent or reversible) or permission requirements.

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 sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loaded purpose. It's concise but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating parameter info from schema). Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly tighter by integrating parameter details more efficiently.

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 mutation tool with annotations (readOnlyHint=false) and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters (via schema), errors, and return format. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., when to apply) and deeper behavioral details like authentication needs or rate limits.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description's Args section repeats parameter names but adds minimal value (e.g., noting 'Server/DC' vs 'Cloud' for username/account_id, which is already in schema descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 user from watching') and resource ('a Jira issue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'jira_add_watcher' and 'jira_get_issue_watchers'. It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear from the name and purpose that this removes watchers, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a watcher to exist), related tools (like 'jira_get_issue_watchers' to check first), or error conditions beyond the generic ValueError.

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