delete-issue-worklog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a worklog, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Delete' and avoids redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's destructive nature (deletion), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not address behavioral risks, permission requirements, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling). For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three required parameters (project_id, issue_id, worklog_id) with their purposes. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters, so it meets the baseline score for 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 ('Delete') and resource ('a worklog entry from an issue'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-issue-comment' or 'delete-issue-link', which have similar deletion patterns but target different 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'update-issue-worklog' for modification or other deletion tools for different resources. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate, offering only basic functional information.

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