jira_label_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burdens. It discloses key behaviors: it leaves other labels untouched, mentions JIRA's space constraint, and specifies the YAML return value. It doesn't cover edge cases like duplicates or error handling, but for this tool the core mutation behavior is well explained.

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 covering purpose, key differentiation, constraints, and return value. Every word is informative, with no fluff. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the behavior (incremental add), the constraint (no spaces), the return format, and mentions other relevant tools. The agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already describes both params and the 'no spaces' constraint. The description adds value by clarifying the incremental nature (leaves other labels untouched) which is not obvious from the schema alone, especially given 'Labels to add or remove' in the schema could imply either add or remove behavior. This is a beneficial addition.

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 is highly specific: it clearly states the tool adds labels incrementally to a JIRA issue, and explicitly differentiates itself from `jira_edit`, which replaces the label set. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides explicit guidance by contrasting with `jira_edit` (which sets the full `labels` array) and by noting it works incrementally. This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over alternatives, and implicitly when not to use it (when a full overwrite is intended).

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