jira_add_worklog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that explicit confirmation is required, meaning the tool will not execute without consent. However, it omits other aspects such as irreversibility, side effects on total logged time, or permission requirements. The confirmation disclosure adds value but is incomplete 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a critical requirement. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too sparse. It does not explain return values, parameter formats, or the impact of the operation. While it names the action, it leaves the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool, especially regarding timeSpent syntax and the meaning of optional fields.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the confirm parameter via 'Requires explicit confirmation.' It does not explain issueKey, timeSpent, started, or comment semantics, leaving the agent to infer meaning from patterns alone. This is a significant gap.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a worklog entry to a Jira issue.' This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like add_comment or list_worklogs. The additional note about explicit confirmation further clarifies the interaction model.

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 purpose sentence provides clear context for when to use this tool (when adding a worklog to a Jira issue). The confirmation requirement serves as a usage prerequisite, though the description does not explicitly contrast alternatives or state when not to use it. Thus it falls just short of a 5.

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