jdra_register_jira_to_weekly_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the core effect (importing and registering into the weekly report), which implies mutation. However, it does not disclose what exactly gets modified, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the issue already exists, what side effects occur, or what the response will be.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action, which is good. However, '두 예시 시나리오 1번' is an unclear, context-dependent fragment that does not earn its place and may confuse an agent. The description is concise but not fully self-contained.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and the existence of closely related sibling tools, the description is too thin for an agent to call this tool confidently. It does not explain prerequisites, return values, error conditions, or how this composite operation differs from the alternative single-purpose tools.

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 100%, so the structured schema already documents both parameters and the example value for 'key'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific action: import a Jira issue and immediately register it in the user's weekly report. This is clear and more specific than just 'import' or 'add'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like jdra_import_jira_issue or jdra_add_issue_to_weekly_report, and the phrase '두 예시 시나리오 1번' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its alternatives. Sibling tools such as jdra_import_jira_issue, jdra_add_issue_to_weekly_report, and jdra_create_and_register_issue exist, but the description never states conditions, exclusions, or recommended selection criteria. The reference to 'example scenario 1' is not actionable without external context.

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