a2atlassian

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't confirm this is destructive/destructiveHint (though implied by 'Remove'), doesn't specify error behavior if connection doesn't exist, and doesn't mention whether this affects in-flight operations or session validity.

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 terse at four words with no redundancy or filler. However, given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations, this brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

Inadequate for a destructive operation with undocumented parameters. Despite having an output schema (which could clarify success/failure), the description doesn't explain return values, and leaves the critical 'project' parameter unexplained while failing to provide safety warnings expected for state-mutating operations.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'project' parameter, and the description completely fails to compensate—it doesn't mention the parameter at all, nor explain the semantic relationship between the 'project' parameter and the 'saved connection' resource being removed (e.g., whether project is an ID, name, or connection identifier).

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 a specific action (Remove) and resource (saved connection), distinguishing it from sibling 'login' (create) and 'list_connections' (read). However, it doesn't specify that this targets Jira/Atlassian connections specifically, leaving slight ambiguity given the mix of Jira-specific and connection-management sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in first), or side effects. While it is semantically the inverse of 'login', the description doesn't state this relationship or warn that removal invalidates future operations requiring authentication.

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