Add Jira worklog

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, and the description adds no further behavior: it doesn't say what permissions are required, whether the issue must exist, whether the log can be edited/removed afterward, or what a failed call looks like. The duration/date syntax note is really parameter guidance, so it does not compensate on the behavioral side.

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?

Two short sentences, the action stated first and the format constraints immediately after. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

For a simple 4-parameter mutation with no nested objects this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should still indicate what comes back (e.g. the created worklog/ID) and any preconditions such as time-tracking being enabled on the project.

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 0%, so the description has to carry all four parameters. It usefully pins down the two ambiguous ones (timeSpent in Jira duration syntax, started as ISO date-time) but says nothing about issueKey or the optional comment field.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: recording work (a worklog) against an issue, which is distinguishable from siblings like jira_add_comment or jira_update_issue. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied — you call it when you need to log time. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisites (e.g. worklog permissions), and no routing to a sibling such as jira_update_issue or jira_add_comment for non-time notes.

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