atlassian-browser-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It explains that comments 'will be visible in the issue history' and mentions specific constraints like 'Some transitions require specific fields to be set (e.g., resolution).' The Raises section also provides important error conditions including 'in read-only mode' which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication 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 clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loaded purpose statement. However, the parameter documentation in the description is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the Raises section could be more concise. Overall efficient but with minor verbosity.

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 destructiveHint annotation, 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: JSON string'), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage workflow, behavioral nuances, and error conditions, making it fully adequate for this mutation tool with good structured data support.

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 provides comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal additional semantic value - it mentions that fields are 'Optional JSON string' and comments are 'in Markdown format,' but these details are already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 ('Transition a Jira issue to a new status') with the resource ('Jira issue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_update_issue (which updates fields without status change) and jira_get_transitions (which only retrieves available transitions). The verb 'transition' is precise and indicates a state change operation.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Use the jira_get_transitions tool first to get the available transition IDs for the issue' in the transition_id parameter description. This creates a clear dependency relationship and tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, establishing a proper workflow sequence.

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