Atlassian Request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a raw pass-through, implying direct API behavior without added safety checks, but it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, rate limits, or that arbitrary endpoints may be destructive. The description is honest about its nature but lacks depth.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 a raw pass-through tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks guidance on how to construct paths, what authentication context applies, and any warnings about destructive operations. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the missing safety/usage context leaves a gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Raw pass-through') and resource ('any Jira or Confluence REST endpoint'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that wrap specific endpoints. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'raw pass-through' means operationally, but it is clear enough to differentiate from the specialized siblings.

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 says 'Use when no other tool fits,' which gives a clear when-to-use signal and implies that specialized siblings should be preferred. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the 'no other tool fits' phrasing provide adequate guidance.

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