jira_update_worklog

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false correctly declares a write operation, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context—such as whether updates are partial or full replacements, permission requirements, or idempotency—beyond what the annotation provides.

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 extremely short ('Update a worklog'), front-loading the verb but failing to earn its place by omitting any useful detail. It is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently structured.

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 complexity (5 parameters, mutation, Jira integration) and the presence of an output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain that worklogId is obtained from jira_list_worklogs (though the schema does), nor does it clarify return behavior or side effects. For a mutation tool, more context is expected even with a rich schema.

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 five parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema (e.g., issue key format, wiki markup, seconds). The description adds no parameter meaning, which is the baseline when the schema carries the full 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 a verb ('Update') and a resource ('worklog'), which is minimally viable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like jira_add_worklog or jira_delete_worklog; the agent must infer that this modifies an existing worklog identified by key+worklogId.

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_add_worklog (create) or jira_delete_worklog (remove). The context is implied by 'Update' but no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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