create_worklog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authorization requirements, idempotency, effects on existing worklog totals, or potential error conditions. It only lists parameters, leaving the agent unaware of key behavioral traits.

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: one sentence stating the purpose plus a structured args list. Every line is informative with no redundant or verbose wording, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 straightforward create operation with five parameters, the description covers all parameter semantics and provides necessary context. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but an output schema exists and this is a simple tool, making it nearly complete though slightly lacking in permission/validation context.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, including 'duration in hours (e.g., 2.5 for 2 hours 30 minutes)' and 'started_at: Optional timestamp when work started (ISO 8601 format)'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 'Create a new worklog for an issue' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling worklog tools like update_worklog, delete_worklog, and get_issue_worklogs, so the agent can easily distinguish its purpose.

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 implies usage for creating a worklog but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as update_worklog or delete_worklog. There is clear context for what it does, but no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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