jira_delete_worklog

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note that deletion is permanent/irreversible, no warning that the worklog is unrecoverable, and no indication of permissions required.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words and the operation is front-loaded. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight economy, since nothing about behavior or usage is covered.

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 two-parameter delete with full schema coverage and annotations signaling destructiveness, the structured fields carry most of the load. Still, an irreversible mutation tool with no output schema would benefit from at least a note on permanence or confirmation expectations.

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 the schema documents both key (with pattern and example) and worklogId (pointing to jira_list_worklogs). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a verb (Delete) and a resource (worklog), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it is essentially the tool name restated with no additional specificity, and it does not distinguish this from close siblings like jira_update_worklog or jira_list_worklogs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus jira_update_worklog, jira_delete_issue, or other destructive siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage comes from the name itself.

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