Connect Jira (OAuth login)

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive call. The description adds the behavior that actually matters: it opens the system browser, returns a URL the agent must surface, blocks for up to waitSeconds, and keeps waiting in the background for 5 minutes total — all invisible in the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the timing behavior, then the user-facing instruction. No sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description still says what comes back (the authorization URL) and how to handle the case where consent is pending. For a two-optional-parameter auth tool, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: waitSeconds bounds only the blocking wait while the login continues in the background, which reconciles the schema's 240-second maximum with the stated 5-minute total. The force parameter is left entirely to the schema, so not a full 5.

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: 'Starts the Atlassian OAuth 2.0 login.' It also names the concrete mechanics (system browser consent, returns authorization URL), which separates it cleanly from jira_auth_status, the sibling that only checks state.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (start login), what to do on the non-approved path ('you can call this tool again or jira_auth_status to check'), and a user-facing fallback instruction ('Show the user the URL if the browser did not open'). The alternative and the retry condition are both spelled out rather than inferred.

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