a2atlassian

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses validation behavior (calls /myself) and critical security traits (variable expansion at runtime, never stored resolved). However, missing details on failure behavior, idempotency, or whether saving overwrites existing connections.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. Purpose and validation front-loaded in first sentence; security guidance follows logically. Every sentence earns its place with specific technical value.

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?

For an authentication tool with 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the critical security aspect well but leaves significant gaps in parameter documentation. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the lack of parameter semantics for 'project' and 'read_only' limits completeness.

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 0%, requiring description compensation. It adds essential semantics for 'token' (ENV_VAR pattern and security model) and implies url/email/token are used for auth via the /myself mention. However, 'project' and 'read_only' parameters remain completely undocumented, and the description doesn't explain parameter relationships or formats.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Save an Atlassian connection' with specific verb and resource, and mentions validation via '/myself'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'logout' (removes connections) and 'list_connections' (reads connections) by specifying the 'save' action.

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 critical security guidance on token passing (ENV_VAR vs literal), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or prerequisites (e.g., 'call this before other jira_* tools'). Usage is implied by the name but not stated.

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