Add worklog

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

The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: started defaults to now, timestamps without offsets are interpreted in the authenticated user's Jira timezone, and the request always carries an explicit offset because Jira rejects Z timestamps. It also states the preference/rejection relationship between timeSpentSeconds and timeSpent. This goes well beyond the basic write hint from annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and packs the critical constraints into the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with nine parameters and a rich schema, the description addresses the most likely points of confusion: duration selection and timezone handling. The input schema fully documents parameters like apply, plan_id, and comment. The absence of an output schema is offset by the clear write semantics; nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is met. The description adds meaningful semantics by declaring timeSpentSeconds as preferred and emphasizing that exactly one of timeSpentSeconds/timeSpent must be passed. The timezone interpretation for started is also a valuable clarification not fully expressed in the schema pattern.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Log work against one issue.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_worklogs or jira_delete_worklog. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context for using the tool: log work against one issue, and provides explicit guidance on the mutually exclusive duration parameters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the primary use case is unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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