File a Jira bug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose a meaningful side effect: without Jira credentials it writes a draft file instead of creating a real issue, which is exactly the kind of degraded-mode behavior an agent must know. It still omits permission/auth requirements beyond that, whether duplicates are created, and what a successful call returns.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the purpose and required content come first and the credentials fallback follows. Small overlap with the title ("File a bug"), but nothing is wasted.

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 four-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and one important behavioral trait but leaves parameter meaning and result expectations unaddressed. An agent could call it, but would be guessing about priority and labels.

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 0% on four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It describes what belongs inside the free-text description field but never mentions the summary, the priority enum values, or the labels array, leaving half the surface undocumented anywhere.

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?

"File a bug for a confirmed product defect" gives a specific verb (file/create) and resource (Jira bug), plus a qualifying condition that separates it from the read-only siblings like get_failure_details or get_test_results. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Confirmed product defect" establishes a clear precondition for invoking this tool versus simply reading test output, and the enumeration of required content (reproduction steps, expected vs actual, failing test name) frames intent. No explicit exclusion or named alternative is offered, keeping it at 4.

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