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` bypasses summary projection for read actions and that mutation actions reject it. It also mentions that the default summary may drop content. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but the disclosures are helpful.

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 moderately sized but well-structured, starting with a clear purpose then detailing actions. Every sentence adds value, but some explanations (e.g., the full flag) could be more concise. Overall, it is front-loaded and organized.

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 14 parameters, multiple actions, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains each action's parameters and the `full` flag behavior. It does not detail return values extensively, but mentions 'raw Jira API response' as a hint. Coverage of edge cases or errors is minimal, but acceptable.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning by explaining which parameters apply to each action (e.g., 'members' requires groupId) and the role of `full`. This compensates for the low schema coverage and provides context beyond the raw 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 actions: search groups, list group members, and inspect permissions. The tool name 'jira_group' aligns with these group-related operations, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other entities like attachments, boards, or issues.

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 explicitly lists actions (search, members, myPermissions) and their required parameters. It explains when to use each action and notes that mutation actions reject `full: true`. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternatives for creating or modifying groups.

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