jira_add_comment_with_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the dual-operation nature and inline image markup option, but lacks details on atomicity, error handling, authentication requirements, or how the comment references the attachment (e.g., automatically appended text). The behavioral description is 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?

The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. Every part contributes to the purpose: upload, comment, reference, inline markup. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the exact mechanism of how the comment references the attachment, nor the behavior when 'embedInline' is false. Some additional context on error handling or the final comment structure would improve completeness for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining the overall workflow (upload then comment) and the effect of 'embedInline'. However, it does not significantly extend beyond the schema descriptions, which are already clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool uploads an attachment to a Jira issue and then posts a comment referencing it, with optional inline image markup. This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'jira_add_attachment' (upload only) and 'jira_add_comment' (comment only).

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 implies the tool is used when both actions are needed together, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over calling the two sibling tools separately, nor does it provide exclusions (e.g., when only one action is needed). The usage context is implied but not explicitly guided.

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