jira_preview_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: the tool does not call Jira at all. This goes beyond the annotations and reassures the agent that this is a purely local computation with no external side effects.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler and the key distinguishing trait ('sem chamar o Jira') is front-loaded. It is efficient, though slightly terse.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the generated fields look like and how they relate to jira_create_issue or jira_update_issue. It only says it generates fields, leaving the agent to infer return shape, validation behavior, and how to feed the result into the next step. For a 7-parameter tool with nested objects, this 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?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so the input schema already documents all significant parameters, including the nested additionalFields and parentKey. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 states a specific behavior: 'Gera os campos que seriam publicados, sem chamar o Jira' clearly identifies a preview/generation action and explicitly notes that no Jira call is made, which distinguishes it from the create/update siblings. It does not name alternatives, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is only implicit: 'sem chamar o Jira' signals a safe dry-run/preview before publishing, and the siblings jira_create_issue and jira_update_issue strongly imply the intended workflow. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any direct reference to sibling tools.

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