jira_update_worklog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without mentioning side effects such as remaining estimate adjustments, permission requirements, or consequences of the adjustEstimate/newEstimate/reduceBy parameters. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word conveys meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical behaviors around estimate adjustments and return values, leaving the agent under-informed for a potentially impactful operation.

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 63%, so the description adds limited value. It lists timeSpent, started, and comment but does not explain how they interact with adjustEstimate, newEstimate, or reduceBy, which are undocumented in the schema. It reinforces key fields but does not fully compensate for gaps.

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?

Clearly states the action (update), the resource (existing worklog), and the main mutable fields (timeSpent, started, comment). The phrase 'existing worklog' distinguishes it from adding or deleting worklogs, and the preference note over UpdateWorklog.jspa adds further clarity.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to prefer this tool over UpdateWorklog.jspa, which is a direct usage guideline. The term 'existing' implies it is not for creating new worklogs, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like jira_add_worklog or jira_delete_worklog.

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