update_work_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool updates a work log and returns an Updated WorkItemWorkLog object, which adds value. However, it lacks detail on side effects, such as what happens if optional fields are omitted, permission requirements, or error behavior.

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 concise and well-structured. It begins with a one-line purpose, then lists parameters with brief explanations, and ends with the return type. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

The description covers the primary action, all parameters, and the return value, making it reasonably complete for an update tool. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context (e.g., partial update semantics), which prevents a perfect score. The output schema exists, so the description need not detail the return 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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description's Args section compensates fully. It explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'UUID of the project', 'Duration of work in minutes') and provides type context that the schema's generic string/integer types do not convey. This gives agents a clear understanding of what to pass.

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: 'Update a work log for a work item.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_work_log' and 'delete_work_log' by naming the update action.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_work_log' or 'delete_work_log'. There are no prerequisites, no mention of when to update, and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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