jira_save_attachment_to_disk

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that saving occurs on the server filesystem, not the client, and adds warnings about the destination. While it could mention overwrite behavior or permissions, it provides sufficient behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 a warning, use cases, args, returns, and an example. Every section earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the critical warning.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (as per context), the description covers all needed aspects: it explains the return format, references sibling tools, and provides enough detail for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining cache_key's origin from download_attachments and providing context for target_path. The example also clarifies usage, enriching the schema descriptions.

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 tool saves a cached attachment to the MCP SERVER's filesystem, using specific verb and resource. It differentiates from client-side saving and provides use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_download_attachments.

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 says when to use (e.g., server running locally, need server-side processing) and when not to use (for client-side saving, use the resource URI). It includes a clear warning and alternative guidance, making it easy for the agent to decide.

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