post_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. It states the action but does not describe side effects, permissions required, idempotency, possible failures, or what happens after logging. The 'on behalf of' phrasing is helpful but is also already reflected in the 'authorAccountId' parameter.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every phrase contributes meaningful context.

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?

With 6 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, this single-sentence description is too thin. It does not indicate that it creates a new worklog, any required Tempo/Jira permissions, or what a successful response looks like. An agent would need to infer important operational context.

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 description adds essentially no parameter-level detail, but the input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including examples and defaults. The description does not need to repeat that information, 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 names a specific action ('log time'), a specific target ('a Jira issue'), and a distinctive scope ('on behalf of a given Jira account'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools 'get_worklogs' and 'delete_worklog'.

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 is given about when to use this tool instead of 'get_worklogs' or 'delete_worklog'. The verb 'log' implies creation, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusionary guidance.

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