jira_add_worklog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions the timeSpent format. It does not disclose side effects such as adjusting the remaining estimate (adjustEstimate parameter), permission requirements, or that it creates a permanent worklog record. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 only two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a concrete format hint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of obvious details.

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 7-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as how adjustEstimate affects the issue, what the response contains (e.g., the new worklog ID), and whether any side effects occur. The schema covers parameters but not tool behavior or workflow 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no new parameter meaning; it merely restates the timeSpent format example that already exists in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states 'Log work on an issue,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like jira_get_worklogs and jira_update_worklog by implying a create operation, though it does not explicitly say 'add.' The format example for timeSpent adds clarity to the tool's primary input.

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 like jira_update_worklog or jira_delete_worklog. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. It simply states what the tool does without contextual placement among sibling tools.

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