jira_fields_remove_context_projects

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

The annotations already set destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms the destructive nature ('Remove projects'). It also specifies the return format. However, it does not elaborate on the consequences of removal (e.g., impact on field visibility in those projects) beyond what the annotation implies.

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 with only two sentences, no redundancy, and immediate clarity. The return object is listed for quick reference. Every part earns its place.

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 removal tool with three parameters, the description covers the core operation and return format. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., context must exist) or error conditions, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for extensive detail. Overall, it is mostly complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the operation but does not explain parameter relationships or provide examples. 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 action ('Remove projects') and the resource ('from a custom field context's scope'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like jira_fields_assign_context_projects (which adds projects) and jira_fields_remove_context_issuetypes (which removes issue types).

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to remove projects from a context), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or recommend alternative tools (e.g., using jira_fields_assign_context_projects to add projects). No prerequisites or scenarios are mentioned.

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