atlassian-browser-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations provide 'destructiveHint: true' indicating mutation, the description specifies that it 'Returns JSON string representing the updated sprint object or an error message' and 'Raises ValueError: If in read-only mode or Jira client unavailable.' This discloses important error conditions and return format that aren't covered by annotations alone.

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 uses a structured format with sections (Args, Returns, Raises) which is helpful, but includes redundant parameter documentation that duplicates the schema. The core description 'Update jira sprint.' is overly terse and could benefit from more context. The structure is functional but not optimally efficient.

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, output schema existence, and comprehensive parameter documentation in the schema, the description provides reasonable completeness. It covers the basic operation, return format, and error conditions. However, it lacks guidance on usage context and relationships to sibling tools, which would be valuable for an agent navigating multiple Jira operations.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats what's in the schema without adding meaningful semantic context about parameter interactions, constraints, or usage patterns. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but redundant parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'jira sprint', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jira_update_issue' or 'jira_create_sprint', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes updating a sprint from other update operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication), when it's appropriate versus creating a new sprint, or how it relates to other sprint operations like 'jira_get_sprints_from_board' or 'jira_get_sprint_issues'.

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