jira_watcher_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the function, required parameters, and return format (YAML `{status: ok}`). However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., notifications), error handling, or idempotency. Adequate but not thorough.

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, no fluff. Purpose, critical instruction, and return format are front-loaded. Perfectly concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and a usage hint. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by emphasizing that accountId must be resolved via jira_user_search, reinforcing schema details and preventing misuse.

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 the specific action: 'Add a user as a watcher on a JIRA issue.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_watcher_remove and jira_watcher_list by specifying the operation and the required identifier type (accountId).

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 explains when to use (to add a watcher) and provides a critical prerequisite: resolve a name or email to an accountId using jira_user_search. It also mentions the CLI equivalent, giving additional context. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases like avoiding duplicate adds.

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