addOrEditJiraIssueWorklog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond the name: it does not explain that a new worklog is created when worklogId is absent, how estimates are adjusted, or what side effects occur on the issue's remaining estimate.

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?

A single eleven-word sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is not padded, though the brevity is partly the cause of the coverage gaps rather than pure efficiency.

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 9-parameter, non-idempotent write tool with no output schema and roughly half the parameters undocumented anywhere, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell how the estimate-adjustment parameters interact or which fields are required for each mode.

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 only 44% across 9 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate for undocumented fields such as reduceBy, newEstimate, adjustEstimate, timeSpentSeconds and issueIdOrKey. It mentions none of them, adding no meaning beyond the four parameters the schema already describes.

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 pair (log time / edit worklog) on a specific resource (a work item's worklog), and the create-vs-edit duality matches the tool name. It does not distinguish itself explicitly from the sibling listJiraIssueWorklogs, which an agent must infer from the verb.

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?

It implies two usage modes — logging new time versus editing an existing worklog — but never states that editing requires an existing worklog identifier, nor names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition. Adequate but relying on inference.

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