create-issue-worklog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, error conditions, or the format of the response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward create operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a worklog ID, affects issue time tracking), doesn't mention error cases or permissions, and provides no context about the worklog system. Given the complexity of creating a time entry and the lack of structured coverage, the description should do more.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between project_id and issue_id, or provide examples beyond the schema's duration example). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Create a new time log entry') and the target resource ('for an issue'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-issue' or 'update-issue-worklog' by focusing on time logging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list-issue-worklogs' or 'delete-issue-worklog' in the description text itself.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing worklogs), or refer to sibling tools like 'update-issue-worklog' or 'list-issue-worklogs' for related operations.

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