jira_watcher

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

The description discloses the basic behavior of listing, adding, removing watchers and votes, including the toggle behavior for votes. However, it omits important behavioral traits detailed in the schema description, such as the 'full' parameter bypassing summaries and mutation actions rejecting it. Given no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially covers it.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every word adds value, though it could be slightly more structured by grouping watcher and vote actions.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), low schema description coverage (25%), and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks details on parameter requirements, return values, or usage context. The schema description provides some completeness, but the main description alone is insufficient.

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?

The description does not explicitly name any parameters (e.g., issueIdOrKey, accountId) beyond implying their need through action names. With schema description coverage at only 25%, the description should compensate but adds minimal parameter-specific meaning. The schema's action table is more informative.

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 lists, adds, and removes watchers on an issue, and also lists votes and toggles the current user's vote. It uses specific verbs and resources (watchers, votes) and distinguishes from siblings like jira_issue which handle broader issue 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jira_issue or jira_comment). It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or what not to use it for. The agent must infer usage from the action list.

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