jira_add_worklog

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions raising ValueError for read-only mode or missing client, and optional comment in Markdown. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., notifications, time tracking adjustments) or permission requirements. Basic behavior is covered but could be more thorough.

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 structured with Args/Returns/Raises sections, front-loading the purpose. It is slightly verbose with examples, but each sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but overall well-organized.

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?

Given 6 parameters (2 required), 100% schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains return value and errors. It lacks details on estimate behavior, but that is secondary; sibling tools handle estimate updates separately.

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%, but the description adds value by providing Jira format examples for time_spent and an ISO format example for started. It also clarifies optionality and default behavior (e.g., current time for started). This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 'Add a worklog entry to a Jira issue,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like jira_add_comment and jira_get_worklog by the unique action of adding time tracking.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., issue existence, permissions) or exclusions, though the task is narrowly defined. The sibling tool list helps but the description lacks such context.

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