jira_watcher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It explains that mutation actions reject 'full: true' and that their responses are minimal, and that read actions with 'full: true' bypass the default summary. Missing details on authorization requirements or side effects, but the disclosed behavioral traits are valuable.

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 concise and well-structured: a summary sentence, a bullet list of actions with clear requirements, and a paragraph explaining the 'full' flag. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's functionality thoroughly, including parameter dependencies and special behavior. However, it does not describe the output format or potential error responses, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 only 25% (only 'full' has a schema description). The tool description compensates fully by explaining the enum values for 'action', which parameters are required per action, and the effect of 'full'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 it lists, adds, and removes watchers, as well as lists and toggles votes on an issue. The verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like issue CRUD or comments.

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 guidance on when to use each action, required parameters, and the behavior of the 'full' flag. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that the context is clear.

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