log_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a write operation (logwork), requires user confirmation (display content for review before submission), and implies mutability. It does not detail auth needs or rate limits, but for a simple logging tool, this is sufficient.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance and a strong warning. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 output schema and 4 required parameters, the description covers the action, required fields, and usage caution. It lacks details about return value (e.g., confirmation or worklog ID) and does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond purpose, but it is complete enough for a simple log tool.

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 coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters described in schema). The description adds value by providing examples for timeSpent format ('2h', '30m', '1h 30m', '1d') and emphasizing that startedAt is required and its format (YYYY-MM-DD). This goes beyond the schema's basic type info.

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 verb 'Ghi nhận thời gian làm việc' (log work time) and specifies the resource 'Jira issue' with an example (fix bug VNPTAI-456). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_worklog and list_worklogs by focusing on the creation of a work log entry.

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 explicitly states when to use: after completing work to track effort. It also provides a strong usage constraint: 'PHẢI hỏi user xác nhận TRƯỚC KHI gọi tool này — không được tự động submit' (must ask user confirmation before calling, not auto-submit). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear.

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