Add Worklog

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Add' aligns. However, no additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., permissions needed, side effects like triggering notifications, or rate limits). The description adds minimal value 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?

A single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and provides essential information efficiently.

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 the 100% schema coverage and existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist), but for a straightforward add operation, it is adequate.

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?

All four parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Add a worklog entry'), the resource ('worklog entry'), and the context ('to a Yandex Tracker issue'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like issue_delete_worklog, issue_update_worklog, and issue_get_worklogs.

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 (e.g., issue_add_comment). It only describes the function without usage context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name.

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