Log time

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the validation constraint that minutes must be >0 and ≤1440, which is useful but already present in the schema. It also states the return value (created worklog entry), which is not in annotations. This adds some context beyond annotations but does not reveal other side effects or authorization requirements.

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 sentence that fronts the core purpose ('Log time spent on a task'), then adds the key validation rule and return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the essential purpose, a critical constraint, and the return value. The schema handles parameter details. The description is complete enough for a straightforward create operation, though it does not explain the meaning of worked_at or comment fields (handled by schema) or any side effects beyond creation.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions the minutes constraint but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries full weight.

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 'Log time spent on a task' uses a specific verb with a clear resource (task worklog). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_task_worklog, delete_task_worklog, and get_task_worklogs by specifying the creation operation. The name add_task_worklog is unambiguous.

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 does not mention that updating or deleting worklogs would use different tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like task ownership or permissions. No explicit context or exclusions are given.

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