jira_worklog

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses support for remaining-estimate adjustment and explains the behavior of the 'full' parameter, including that mutation actions reject it. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions.

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 by action and provides useful breakdowns, but it is somewhat verbose (e.g., repeating the first sentence in the schema description field). It could be more concise while retaining key information.

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, 4 actions, and no output schema, the description covers action-specific required params, estimate adjustment, and 'full' behavior. However, it does not describe the response format (e.g., returned worklog structure) or pagination details, leaving some gaps.

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?

With only 11% schema coverage, the description compensates by grouping parameters per action, listing required vs optional params, and explaining the 'full' parameter. It adds meaning beyond the schema but does not document every parameter individually.

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 that the tool can list, add, update, and delete worklogs on an issue, effectively identifying the verb+resource and distinguishing it from sibling Jira tools that handle other entities.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the sibling tools cover distinct resources, so context implies usage. No when-not-to-use or comparative guidance is provided.

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