jazz_insert

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'privileged backend access' and the environment variable requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and then the key prerequisite. Every word 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 two-parameter insert tool with annotations, the description covers the primary usage context and gate condition. However, it omits return value expectations and error behavior, which would be helpful without an output schema.

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 has zero parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain 'table' or 'values'. 'Insert a row' implies 'values' represents the row data, but no structural details are provided, which is insufficient given the 0% schema coverage.

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 function: 'Insert a row' using Jazz's native mutation API. This specific verb+resource action distinguishes it from sibling tools like jazz_update and jazz_delete, and the mention of privileged backend access adds specificity.

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 creating new rows and provides the critical prerequisite that it is disabled unless JAZZ_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=true. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like jazz_update for modifying existing rows or mention when not to use this tool.

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