a2atlassian

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable context that the comment 'body' uses wiki markup and references API v2, but omits mutation side effects, idempotency, or error conditions.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure. Information is front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence adds critical formatting context without verbosity. No redundant or filler text.

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 has an output schema (relieving the description of return value documentation), the description meets minimum viability by explaining the core action and input format. However, with zero schema descriptions, it lacks sufficient detail for an agent to correctly populate all parameters without guessing.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It partially compensates by indicating wiki markup applies to the body content, but leaves 'project', 'issue_key', and 'format' parameters completely undocumented with no type hints or examples.

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 specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment to a Jira issue'). Implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'jira_edit_comment' and 'jira_get_comments' through the action verb, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to add vs. edit a comment) or prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist). Agents must infer usage solely from the verb.

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