jira_add_worklog

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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries nearly the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it omits that this is a mutating create, that it may fail if time tracking is disabled, and that timeSpentSeconds conflicts with the human-readable display format. Only the bare fact of logging work is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — nothing wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but on the conciseness axis it is appropriately sized for what it attempts.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully documented. What remains missing is behavioral and routing context — this is a write operation in a four-tool worklog family and the description gives no indication of that.

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% and all four parameters (key, timeSpentSeconds, started, comment) are documented in the schema with patterns and format examples. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Log work against an issue" names a specific verb (log work) and resource (issue), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings jira_update_worklog, jira_delete_worklog, or jira_list_worklogs, which an agent must open separately to disambiguate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (timetracking must be enabled, user must have Work On Issues permission), and no pointer to the sibling worklog tools. The agent gets no signal about when creating a worklog is the right choice versus updating or listing one.

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