Remove Issue Watcher

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with that. The description does not add much beyond what the title and schema already convey, such as irreversibility or the distinction between username/account_id for Jira Server vs Cloud, though the schema does cover those details.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the core action.

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 simple remove-watcher tool, the description plus schema and annotations are fairly complete. It might benefit from noting that username and account_id are mutually exclusive depending on Jira type, but the schema descriptions already indicate the intended use and the output schema is present.

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 100%: each parameter has a description (e.g., 'Username to remove (for Jira Server/DC)', 'Account ID to remove (for Jira Cloud)'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove a user from watching a Jira issue' uses a specific verb (remove) and clearly identifies both the resource (watcher/user) and the target (Jira issue). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools jira_add_watcher and jira_get_issue_watchers.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you want to remove a watcher from an issue) and the context is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though sibling tool names partially fill that gap.

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