Log Jira Note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'saves' notes, implying a write operation, but does not disclose whether it creates a new note each time, overwrites existing notes, appends to a log, or how it handles naming/conflicts. It also fails to mention any return value or error behavior, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and destination, and every word contributes. It avoids fluff, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat under-specified. It clarifies the folder and content, but does not explain the resulting file structure, how notes are stored, or what the agent should expect after invocation. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 schema already covers 77% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds minimal extra semantic value. It highlights key fields like 'summary, context, decisions, blockers, and links' which aligns with schema properties, but it does not explain format, types, or any nuances beyond the schema. The mention of 'decisions' has no direct field, which may be assumed to live in 'context'.

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 with a specific verb ('Save'), resource ('structured notes for a Jira ticket'), and destination ('to the Jira/ folder'). It also identifies key content captured (summary, context, decisions, blockers, links), distinguishing it from sibling note tools like create_note or create_meeting_note.

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 clear context for usage: 'Great for keeping rich context alongside Jira's limited fields.' This implies the tool is preferred when more detail is needed than Jira's native fields can hold. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, so it falls short of a 5.

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