add_time_worked_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Add time to the time worked on a ticket' conveys a mutation, but it omits any details about error conditions, whether years are allowed/required, whether the operation is destructive, or how the existing value is affected (e.g. no existing time means).

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 a single short and direct sentence with no redundant or invented detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficient enough for an agent to understand the purpose. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance versus the set-time sibling, but the schema already handles input 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 100%, with each parameter ('ticket_id', 'minutes') already clearly documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('time worked on a ticket'), clearly conveying the operation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'set_time_worked_tool' because adding is not the same as setting/replacing the value.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. A sibling tool, 'set_time_worked_tool', exists and could easily be confused for this operation, but the description does not clarify when to use 'add' versus 'set'.

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