Registrar bug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'records a local bug' without mentioning persistence, side effects, overwrite behavior, authentication, or response format. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 purpose, and an explicit alternative. No filler or redundant phrasing – every word earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the required 'title' should be, how status values relate to the bug lifecycle, what ticket_id refers to, or what the tool returns. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly with confidence.

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 only 17% (only status has a description). The description mentions severity and classification but does not explain title, status, ticket_id, or description beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is low, the description fails to compensate and leaves most parameters semantically underdocumented.

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 states a specific verb (records) and resource (local bug) and names the key alternative (qa-oracle's search_bug_history), making it distinguishable from the corporate Jira history tool. The phrase 'severity + classification' adds clarity on the main fields involved.

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?

Explicitly instructs when not to use this tool: 'Para histórico Jira corporativo use o MCP qa-oracle (search_bug_history).' This provides a clear when-not and names the alternative tool, which is exactly what this dimension rewards.

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