update-issue-worklog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. It mentions 'update' which implies mutation but lacks details on side effects or response format, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral context, error handling, return values, and usage guidelines, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke this tool correctly in complex scenarios.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage nuances. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 'Update an existing worklog entry' clearly states the action (update) and resource (worklog entry), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'update-issue' or 'update-issue-comment'. It specifies the type of resource but lacks detail about what a worklog entry represents in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-issue-worklog' or 'delete-issue-worklog', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing existing project, issue, and worklog IDs. The description implies usage for updates but offers no context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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