update_worklog

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. 'Update an existing worklog' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update'), though it lacks detail. Every word earns its place, making it efficient despite being under-specified.

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 complexity (4 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, or how it fits into the broader context of worklog management with siblings like 'create_worklog' and 'delete_worklog'. For a mutation tool with rich schema but no annotations or output schema, more guidance is needed.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'issue_id' as 'The uuid identifier of the issue containing the worklog'). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 'Update an existing worklog' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('worklog'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_issue' or other update tools, nor does it specify what aspects of a worklog can be updated. It's a generic statement that could apply to any update operation.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing worklog), when not to use it (e.g., for creating vs. updating), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_worklog' or 'delete_worklog'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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