Update Worklog

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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, which already signals a write operation. The description adds no behavioral context about whether the update is partial (only provided fields) or replaces the entire worklog, nor does it mention side effects or permissions. This is a significant gap 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 a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the purpose immediately. It earns its place by being perfectly concise.

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?

For a simple update tool with full parameter descriptions, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate. It covers the core purpose, and missing behavioral details are more of a transparency concern. Completeness is strong given the structured information.

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%, with each parameter (start, comment, duration, issue_id, worklog_id) having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient, so 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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'worklog entry (spent time record) in a Yandex Tracker issue'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_add_worklog, issue_delete_worklog, and issue_get_worklogs.

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 clear context: updating an existing worklog entry. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool, especially given the required worklog_id parameter.

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