jira_request

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it largely does not: it never warns that DELETE/PUT/PATCH are possible, that auth/permissions are required, or how responses/errors surface. The word 'raw' hints at unguarded capability, which is useful but thin.

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?

Two sentences, roughly fifteen words, with the core identity ('raw Jira REST call') front-loaded and the qualifying scope immediately after. No filler.

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 an arbitrary-method, arbitrary-path escape hatch, the minimum an agent needs is guidance that this bypasses safety rails and requires valid auth/permissions, which is absent. The rich schema compensates for input shape, and no output schema means return values need not be explained, but the risk profile is under-described.

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%, including an example path with a plugin module and per-parameter descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional semantics about parameter format, encoding, or required combinations — 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?

States a concrete action (raw Jira REST call) and immediately frames its role as the fallback for plugin modules lacking a dedicated tool, which differentiates it from the large sibling set of purpose-built Jira tools. It stops short of naming a specific sibling to prefer.

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 escape hatch for plugin modules that have no dedicated tool yet' gives a clear selection condition: reach for this only when no first-class tool exists. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, but the implied preference for dedicated tools is strong.

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