jira_add_worklog

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses expected failure modes ('Raises ValueError: If in read-only mode or Jira client unavailable') and the return type ('JSON string representing the added worklog object'). It also documents optional parameter behaviors (e.g., 'started' defaults to current time) in the schema, but the description reinforces these. This goes beyond a typical one-line mutation tool.

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 concise, starting with a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args/Returns/Raises format. It is front-loaded and avoids verbosity. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall format is clean and scannable, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 covers the essentials: the action, all parameters (via schema), the return value (JSON string), and error conditions (read-only mode, client unavailable). Given the tool's moderate complexity and the rich schema, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, including examples for time_spent and started and default behaviors. The description's Args section merely echoes parameter names and short descriptions without adding new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Add a worklog entry to a Jira issue,' which clearly states the action (add) and resource (worklog on a Jira issue). This is distinct from sibling tools like jira_get_worklog (retrieve) and jira_add_comment (add a comment), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for logging time on an issue or contrast it with jira_get_worklog for reading worklogs. The only context is the action itself, so the agent receives no explicit usage direction.

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