Add a Jira worklog

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral details: Jira's minute granularity (minimum 60s), default for 'started', and normalization to Jira format, which go beyond 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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description is thorough for a simple mutation tool, but lacks information about return value or confirmation (no output schema). However, annotations and schema cover safety and parameters well.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description enriches parameter meaning: explains issue_key format, time_spent_seconds as duration, started default and normalization, comment as optional. Adds constraints (minimum 60s) not in schema.

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 action (log work via POST) and resource (Jira issue), with specific parameter examples. It is distinct from sibling tools 'list_worklogs' (read) and 'whoami' (user info).

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 for use (logging work on an issue), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving some gap in guidance.

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