Jira POST Request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses output format (TOON vs JSON), cost implications of unfiltered responses, and the importance of jq for token efficiency. It also notes that unfiltered responses are 'expensive.' It stops short of mentioning auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond 'create,' but the provided context is substantial.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections: intro, cost optimization, output format, common operations, API reference. It front-loads the most important guidance about jq filtering and cost. Minor redundancy exists (TOON mentioned twice as default), but overall the length is justified by the tool's complexity and multiple use cases.

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 params, multiple endpoint patterns, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: input examples, output format, cost optimization, and a link to full API docs. It does not detail response structures or error handling, but it provides enough for an agent to correctly construct requests and parse responses via jq. This is strong for a generic POST wrapper.

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 meaningful value by showing exact body structures for four common operations, jq usage examples, and outputFormat guidance. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, providing real-world usage patterns and endpoint-specific payloads.

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 opens with 'Create Jira resources,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's purpose. It differentiates from siblings like jira_get, jira_put, etc., by referencing the POST method and lists concrete use cases (create issue, add comment, add worklog, transition issue). It also explicitly directs attachment creation to a sibling tool, further clarifying scope.

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 provides 'Common operations' with endpoint paths and request body examples, implicitly guiding when to use this tool for POST-style operations. It explicitly says to use jira_add_attachment for attachments, which is a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly contrast with PUT/PATCH/DELETE for update/delete operations, only showing POST use cases.

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