jira_worklog

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains remaining-estimate adjustment and the behavior of the `full` parameter (summary projection on reads, rejection on mutations). It does not contradict any 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?

The description is verbose and repeats the opening line twice. However, it is well-structured with action-specific bullet points and front-loads the core purpose. Some trimming could improve conciseness.

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 18 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description provides good action-specific parameter grouping and explains key behavior like `full`. However, it lacks details on output structure and pagination for the list action, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 11%, so the description must compensate. While it groups parameters per action and explains the `full` parameter, many parameters (e.g., startAt, maxResults, startedAfter) receive no individual explanation beyond being listed. The `timeSpent` schema description provides an example but the main description does not expand on it. This leaves gaps for a high-parameter tool.

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 it lists, adds, updates, and deletes worklogs on an issue, which is specific and distinguishes from sibling Jira tools that handle other resources.

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 explicit guidance for each action (list, add, update, delete), listing required and optional parameters, and explains when to use the `full` parameter. It also notes that mutation actions reject `full: true`, giving clear usage boundaries.

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