fossa_save_jira_configuration

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

Beyond the annotations (which provide no safety hints), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: writes to FOSSA, requires environment variable and subscription, credentials are stored, travel through tool call and appear in transcripts, and are not echoed back. It also explains the clear_fields mechanism and why it exists, adding significant context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses caps for warnings, and logically structured paragraphs for create/update and credentials. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the credential warning is detailed but fully relevant. No filler or redundancies.

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 complex write tool with 19 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers key usage modes, prerequisites, credential security, and the nuanced behavior of updates and clearing fields. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. This description is exceptionally complete for this complexity level.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the key semantics of jira_id (create vs update), clear_fields (clearing null fields vs leaving unchanged), and credentials (username, password, headers) including their handling. However, many parameters like components, issue_types, and default_* projects remain undocumented, leaving gaps for a 19-parameter tool.

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's function: 'Create a Jira site configuration, or update an existing one.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the create/update distinction distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_get_jira_configurations and fossa_delete_jira_configuration.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use create vs update: 'Omit `jira_id` to create; supply it to update.' It also notes prerequisites (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, premium subscription) and offers an alternative for credential configuration: 'prefer configuring credentials in the FOSSA web app and using this tool for everything else.'

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