jira_set_project_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key downstream effect (enabling jira_read_task to include the path hint), but it does not state whether the mapping overwrites an existing one, whether it persists, or any authorization requirements. This is a reasonable but not fully transparent disclosure.

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 two tightly written sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second explains the practical benefit for jira_read_task. No filler or redundant 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 2-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the main action, the purpose, and a meaningful integration context. It does not describe the return value or explain behavior on repeated calls, but given the tool's low complexity, this is largely sufficient.

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% (both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema). The description's mention of 'Jira project key' and 'local repository path' mirrors the schema without adding new constraints, formats, or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra semantic value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Map' with clear resources ('Jira project key' and 'local repository path'), and the mention of enabling jira_read_task distinguishes it from the sibling jira_get_project_path. Purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context by explaining when this tool is useful: before jira_read_task, to include a local path hint for code exploration. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the inverse tool jira_get_project_path, but the situational guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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