jira_delete_worklog

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

Without annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action is to delete, but fails to mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or whether notifications are triggered. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 with no extraneous information. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the essential verb and resource.

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 delete operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is partially complete. However, it lacks information on return values, error handling, or permissions, which would be helpful for an agent using the 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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('The issue key' and 'The work log ID to delete'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 specifies the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a work log entry from a Jira issue'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like jira_add_worklog and jira_update_worklog.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jira_update_worklog) or when not to use it. The description implies usage when a work log entry needs to be removed, but lacks context about prerequisites or constraints.

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