Add Jira Attachment

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

The description adds important behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the server's conversion to multipart, the requirement for base64 with binary files, and the non-idempotent behavior ('Uploading the same file twice creates two Jira attachments'). These details align with annotations but provide context the annotations do not.

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 three sentences, all containing necessary information. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds technical and behavioral details without any fluff. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, encoding constraints), the description covers the key usage aspects: target, encoding rules, and idempotency. Since an output schema exists, return values are already documented. The description is sufficient for correct selection and 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the encoding semantics: 'Binary files must use encoding=base64' and that the server converts UTF-8/base64 content. This goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions, providing practical guidance for using the content and encoding parameters.

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 'Upload one attachment to a Jira issue or Jira Product Discovery idea,' which specifies the verb, the resource, and the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_post or jira_create_jpd_insight, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when uploading an attachment) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks a direct contrast with generic HTTP methods like jira_post, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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