Generate a delivery document for a Jira issue

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the meaningful operational facts that it fetches the Jira issue itself, returns Markdown, and writes no files. It does not disclose cost/latency of assembling a report or any auth prerequisite, but the key behavioral profile is covered.

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?

Three tight sentences: artifact list first, selection guidance second, operational facts (fetch behavior, Markdown return, no file writes) last. No filler, and the 'no files written' constraint is placed where an agent will see it.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers inputs' coupling and side effects. It leaves gaps around how much of the repo/diff is scanned and whether remote Jira/Confluence calls have limits, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description's notes on persona and audience restate what the schema already says ('Required when type is reviewer_report', 'release_notes only'), adding no syntax or conditional rules beyond the structured fields; includePrDiff's coupling to test_strategy is only hinted at.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Generate a delivery artifact from a Jira issue and the local diff') and enumerates all five artifact types with their distinguishing traits. An agent can distinguish this from delivery_check_changes or delivery_generate_agent_pack without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit selection guidance for two of the five types ('Use test_strategy to plan tests and reviewer_report to review a ticket from a persona's point of view') and flags the conditional requirements (persona for reviewer_report, audience for release_notes). It does not say when to prefer this over sibling tools like delivery_generate_agent_pack or how qa_handoff/release_notes/task_report differ in situation.

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