update_worklog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply states 'Update an existing worklog' and lists parameters, without explaining partial vs. full update semantics, whether null values clear fields, permissions required, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool; the behavior beyond the basic operation remains opaque.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a clean list of arguments. Every line earns its place, with no fluff or redundant repetition. Structure front-loads the main action and then details parameters, making it easy to scan.

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 purpose and parameters, which is a minimal viable baseline for a CRUD tool. However, it lacks usage guidelines, behavioral edge cases, and preconditions (e.g., the worklog must already exist, correct permissions). Given the tool's mutation nature and absence of annotations, the description leaves several contextual gaps that an agent would need to resolve.

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 must compensate. It does—each parameter gets a one-line explanation, including units for duration ('hours') and context for the IDs. However, it leaves ambiguity about optional parameters (e.g., whether null means 'ignore' or 'set to null'), and the 'Updated' prefix on duration/description/started_at could be clearer. Overall, it adds meaningful value beyond the raw schema.

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 action: 'Update an existing worklog.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_worklog and delete_worklog. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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—when you need to modify an existing worklog—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_worklog for new entries, delete_worklog for removal). No exclusions or conditional scenarios are mentioned, leaving the usage context mostly inferred.

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