manage_projects

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

Description lacks behavioral traits beyond listing actions. For a tool that includes 'create' (a mutation), there is no mention of side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. No annotations exist to compensate.

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 with minimal redundancy. However, structuring the actions as a list or grouping related parameters would improve scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not hint at return values. With nine parameters and multiple actions, it fails to clarify which parameters apply to which action, requiring the agent to infer from schema descriptions.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), meeting the baseline. However, the description adds no additional meaning for parameters beyond the action list, missing opportunities to clarify conditional requirements.

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 it manages Jira projects with four distinct actions: list, get, list_statuses, create. It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_issues or manage_boards by focusing on project-level operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_issues or manage_versions. The description lists actions but does not explain context or prerequisites for using 'create' versus other actions.

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