jira_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool can delete metadata (destructive), but does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether operations are reversible. The behavior of the 'meta' action is not explained in the top-level description.

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 description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and providing a critical distinction (no download). Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 three parameters, multiple actions, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not cover action-specific behavior, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 33%, the description adds no parameter information beyond the schema's inline description. The top-level description does not explain attachmentId, action, or full parameters, failing to compensate for schema gaps.

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 tool inspects or deletes attachment metadata, distinguishing it from downloading via the streaming downloader. The verb 'inspect or delete' and resource 'attachment metadata' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides limited guidance: it tells the agent to use the streaming downloader for downloading bytes, but does not clarify when to use 'get' vs 'delete' vs 'meta' actions or any prerequisites. No alternatives among sibling tools are mentioned.

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