log_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a valuable behavioral trait: logs can only be edited within ~1 hour of creation. It also explains the value unit (hours or points). However, it does not mention permissions, return values, or idempotency, leaving some behavioral aspects 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 three sentences, each adding essential information: the purpose, the parameter semantics for value and comment, and a critical behavioral constraint. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant or irrelevant text.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core usage well: what it does, the value unit, optional comment, and edit window. It does not mention what the tool returns or potential error cases, which are relevant for a mutation operation. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains 'value' as the amount worked in the project's costMetric unit, and 'comment' as an optional note. The remaining parameters, project_id and work_item_id, are left to be inferred from their names, which is reasonable but not explicitly clarified. This provides partial compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Log time/effort on a work item.' This uses a specific verb ('log') and resource ('work item'), and adds scope by defining the value unit and edit constraint. It readily distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_work_logs (read-only) and add_comment (different 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 recording effort but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. Siblings like list_work_logs for viewing or add_comment for notes are not mentioned. The edit constraint gives some context but does not clarify when to choose this tool over others.

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