Update worklog

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

The description only restates the core action and does not disclose behavioral details beyond annotations. It does not mention whether updates are partial/full, how missing worklogs are handled, or what is returned. Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), but the description adds no extra context.

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. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool description is minimal, but the schema and annotations fill in parameter and safety details. It lacks explicit guidance about partial updates or error behavior, and no output schema is present. For a simple update tool, the description is adequate but leaves room for richer context.

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 descriptions cover all five parameters (100% coverage) with meaningful details such as 'Updated time in minutes (max 1440)' and 'Optional note'. The tool description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score applies.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('existing worklog entry for a task'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_task_worklog and delete_task_worklog by explicitly mentioning 'existing'.

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 phrase 'existing worklog entry' indicates this is for modifying already-created worklogs, implying when to use it. Sibling tool names (add_task_worklog, delete_task_worklog) provide clear alternatives, though no explicit exclusions are stated.

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