Disconnect Jira

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to say what exactly is destroyed and what remains. It does both: stored tokens on this machine are removed, while the remote app grant persists until manually revoked. It does not mention irreversibility of the deletion or what the caller must do afterwards (re-run jira_connect), which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the remediation caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded or restated from the 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description only needs to convey the state change and the residual remote grant, which it does. A note on what happens to existing in-flight sessions or whether reconnection is needed would make it fully self-contained.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. A 4 is the baseline for a no-arg tool; no parameter-related gaps exist.

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 ('Deletes the stored tokens') and names the effect ('this machine is no longer authorized'). It is clearly the inverse of jira_connect, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 second sentence gives the critical usage context: local deletion leaves the app authorized remotely, so full revocation requires the Atlassian URL. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you want to log out / do not use if you only need to switch sites' rule, but the conditional is clear enough to act on.

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