Jira: Resolve User AccountId

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions using the /rest/api/3/user/search API and selecting the best candidate, which gives some insight but lacks details on matching logic, error handling, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence of 24 words, front-loading the key action ('Resolve a single best-match Jira user and return accountId') and providing only essential information without redundancy.

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?

While the description covers the main purpose and key parameters, it lacks output schema and does not explain failure behavior (e.g., no match found) or return format beyond 'accountId.' For a simple resolver, this is somewhat incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose. Thus, score at baseline 3.

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 resolves a single best-match Jira user and returns an accountId, specifically for setting user picker custom fields. It mentions the API endpoint used and that it selects the best candidate, which differentiates it from sibling tools like jira_search_users that return multiple users.

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 provides context on when to use the tool ('for setting user picker custom fields') and implies it's for a single best match, contrasting with search tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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