Call Jira REST API

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

Goes beyond annotations in useful ways: writes/deletes act as the configured user, credentials must not be embedded, and apiPath is relative to /rest/. Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld, so this adds real operational context. It misses what happens on error responses and whether it returns raw JSON unmodified.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then path format, then methods, then the credential and identity caveats. Examples are inline and earn their 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 generic REST passthrough with a 4-param, untyped body and no output schema, the description covers host resolution, path base, methods, auth identity, and the credential-safety rule. It stops short of describing response handling, pagination, or error behavior, which would matter for a raw-API tool.

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%, so the description carries the burden — and it does: apiPath semantics (relative to /rest/) with three concrete path examples across core, agile, and servicedesk APIs, the supported method set, and the shape/role of query and body. Strong compensation for an undocumented schema.

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?

States a specific verb (call) and resource (any JSON Jira Data Center REST endpoint on the configured host), and immediately scopes it as an escape hatch beyond the curated jira_* siblings. An agent can tell this is the raw-API fallback rather than a purpose-built operation.

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?

Conveys the when-to-use context (anything the curated jira_* tools don't cover) via 'any endpoint', plus a clear prohibition on putting credentials in apiPath/query/body. However, it never explicitly says 'prefer the dedicated jira_* tool when one exists' nor warns about the destructive consequences of a wrong DELETE/PUT.

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