jira_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It explains the 'full' parameter behavior and that mutation actions reject it. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., deletion irreversibility), permissions, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps.

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 tool description is a concise single sentence. The schema description is longer but well-structured with action headers and bullet-style parameter lists. It is front-loaded with the overall purpose, though some redundancy exists.

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 tool with 25 parameters and 11 actions, the description covers action-parameter mappings and the 'full' parameter behavior. However, it does not describe return values (no output schema), pagination mechanisms for list actions, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 low (16%), but the action descriptions in the schema compensate by listing required/optional parameters per action. Individual parameter semantics are not explained beyond names, so agents still rely on parameter names and basic types. The description adds some meaning but not full detail.

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 it manages Jira projects, components, versions, and statuses. The action list in the schema further clarifies the specific operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on issues, boards, etc.

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 lists actions and their parameters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_issue or jira_board. Usage is implied through action names, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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