atlassian-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if only partial fields are provided. The mention of format options for description adds some value, but overall behavioral context is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and additional details in the second. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, and the second clarifies parameter behavior. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and some parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines, full behavioral transparency, and documentation for all parameters. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'description' accepts either a string (plain text) or dictionary (Atlassian Document Format), which clarifies beyond the schema's generic type. However, it doesn't explain 'issue_key' or 'summary' parameters, leaving half the parameters undocumented. This partial compensation results in a baseline score.

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 clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('summary or description of a Jira issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'jira_create_issue' (creation) and 'jira_add_comment' (commenting), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more differentiated from other update-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue key), exclusions (e.g., not for updating other fields like status), or when to choose this over other tools like 'jira_transition_issue' for workflow changes. Usage is implied through the action, but explicit context is lacking.

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