jira_issue

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: trimmed summaries with disk references, the 'full' parameter to bypass projection, and that mutation actions reject 'full: true'. However, no annotations are provided, and it omits authorization or rate limits.

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 bullet points and front-loaded purpose. It is reasonably concise given the complexity (15 parameters, 9 actions), with each sentence adding value.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and multiple actions, the description covers each action's requirements and the special 'full' parameter. It lacks details on return values but is otherwise complete for the tool's 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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the per-action parameter requirements add useful context beyond the schema. However, many parameters lack detailed semantics, and the description partly repeats schema information.

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 manages Jira issues with explicit actions (get, create, update, delete, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_attachment or jira_comment that handle specific sub-resources.

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 bulleted actions provide clear guidance on when to use each action with required/optional parameters, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., use jira_attachment for attachments).

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