jira_add_worklog

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

No annotations provided. The description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it adds to existing worklogs, requires specific permissions, or has any constraints like time format or maximum hours. Minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence, no extraneous information. Efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

Simple tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but adequate for a basic log action. However, it lacks context like required issue status or authorization needs, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 already documents parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra value for parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the action: logging work time against a Jira issue. The verb 'log' and resource 'work time against a Jira issue' are specific and unambiguous. Sibling tools include jira_add_comment, but that is for comments, not worklogs, so no confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no similar worklog mutation tools in siblings, but it doesn't mention prerequisites like issue existence or permissions. The description does not provide context for appropriate use.

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