jira_fields_assign_context_projects

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

The description discloses that assigning projects converts a global context into a project-scoped one, adding value beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. However, it does not clarify whether assignments are additive or replace existing ones, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a return format note. Every sentence adds value, and the main action is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 tool with 3 well-documented parameters and an output schema described, the description covers the core behavior and return values. It lacks information on error handling or idempotency but is sufficient for a simple assignment operation.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter (field_id, context_id, project_ids). The description does not add extra semantics or formatting details beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Scope a custom field context to specific projects.' It uses a specific verb ('scope') and resource ('custom field context to projects'), distinguishing it from siblings like jira_fields_remove_context_projects and jira_fields_add_context_issuetypes.

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 implies usage for assigning projects to a context but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like jira_fields_remove_context_projects or jira_fields_create_context. It lacks prerequisites or exclusions, earning a mid-range score.

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