a2atlassian

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes the wiki markup format requirement; it fails to disclose that this operation overwrites existing content, whether it is destructive/reversible, or error conditions (e.g., invalid comment_id).

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 two-sentence structure is efficient with no wasted words. However, given the lack of schema documentation and annotations, the extreme brevity becomes a liability rather than a virtue, as critical context is omitted.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing the need for return value description), the tool requires four identifiers (project, issue, comment, body) with zero schema coverage. The description inadequately explains these inputs or the mutation's side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent attempting 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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It only partially addresses the 'body' parameter by noting wiki markup. It fails to explain the other four parameters: the relationship between 'project' and 'issue_key', what constitutes a valid 'comment_id', or the purpose of the 'format' parameter.

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 specific action ('Edit') and resource ('existing comment on a Jira issue'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'jira_add_comment'. The mention of 'wiki markup (API v2)' adds necessary technical context about the implementation.

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?

While 'Edit an existing' implies the tool is for modification rather than creation, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'jira_add_comment', nor any mention of prerequisites like permissions or comment ownership.

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