jira_upload_attachment

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It notes the transfer is multipart, which is mildly useful, but says nothing about authorization requirements, file size limits, accepted file types, or what happens on success/failure for this mutation.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the parenthetical '(multipart)' is a minor implementation detail rather than agent-relevant information.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with thin annotations it leaves unstated the practical constraints of uploading (permissions, size limits, error behavior) that an agent would benefit from.

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 both parameters ('key' with its pattern and example, 'filePath' as absolute path) are already documented. The description's 'local file' phrasing merely echoes the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('upload a local file as an issue attachment') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like jira_delete_attachment, jira_list_attachments, and jira_get_attachment_meta. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, but the name and description are unambiguous on their own.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites are mentioned (file must exist locally, permissions required, size limits). The agent must infer usage context entirely.

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