Create component

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the concrete non-idempotency consequence ('Running this twice creates two components'), the plain-text storage behavior with literal markdown, and the permission requirement. The idempotentHint=false annotation is reinforced with a specific behavioral warning rather than merely restated. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: core purpose, sibling asymmetry, storage behavior, permission, and duplicate warning. Dense with no filler, and front-loaded so the primary purpose leads before any caveats.

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 write tool with 8 parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral context: permission, dedup caution, and content formatting quirks. The schema documents every parameter, compensating for the absence of an output schema. Minor gap: the success response is not described even though no output schema exists to communicate the return value.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description's notes on project KEY and plain-text description largely repeat what the schema states ('Project KEY (ABC)', 'stored as PLAIN TEXT'). Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a component in a project' — and clarifies what a component is ('a sub-area issues can be filed under'). Explicitly distinguishes from jira_create_version by noting the KEY-vs-numeric-id asymmetry. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without ever opening the schema.

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?

Provides concrete actionable guidance: the 'Administer projects' permission prerequisite, and the instruction to 'check jira_list_components first' because running twice creates two components. The sibling contrast with jira_create_version helps route to the correct tool. Lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement beyond the version sibling, but the guidance given is specific and decision-relevant.

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