jira_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that `full: true` is only for read actions and that mutation actions reject it. It also notes that `groupId` is preferred over deprecated `groupname`. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects, which is a gap for a tool with 14 parameters.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, bulleted action list, and a concise note on `full: true`. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema and 14 parameters, yet the description fails to describe the return values or structure for any action. It mentions 'summary projection' but does not clarify what is included. This leaves the agent guessing about the response format, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 21%, so the description must compensate. It does add value by grouping parameters per action and explaining the `full` parameter. However, for many parameters like `query`, `accountId`, `caseInsensitive`, it merely repeats the parameter name without deeper semantic context, leaving much to the schema.

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 three distinct functions: search groups, list group members, and inspect permissions. The actions enum further disambiguates, making it easy for an agent to select the correct operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_user or jira_project by focusing on group-specific operations.

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 detailed action-specific parameter lists, including required vs optional parameters for each action. It also explains when to use `full: true` for read actions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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