update_worklog

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a worklog entry' without explaining whether the update replaces the entry, which fields are affected, if changes are reversible, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single sentence with zero fluff, making it concise and readable. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary contextual information, though the conciseness itself is effective.

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?

Despite having seven parameters, a rich schema, an output schema, and multiple sibling worklog tools, the description offers no additional context about return values, update semantics, or how it fits into the broader worklog workflow. It is too minimal to fully support tool selection and invocation.

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 all seven parameters with meaningful descriptions (e.g., 'New duration in ISO 8601'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema's thorough documentation meets the baseline for this dimension.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' and a clear resource 'worklog entry', which distinguishes it from sibling worklog tools like add_worklog, delete_worklog, list_worklog, and search_worklog. However, it lacks detail about what aspects of the worklog can be updated (e.g., comment, duration), so it is clear but not fully explicit.

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 such as add_worklog or delete_worklog. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role solely from its name and sibling context.

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