delete_worklog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the most important trait: 'This cannot be undone.' It omits permission/auth requirements, behavior when the worklog_id is invalid or already deleted, and any error/response shape, leaving real gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: the action leads, the irreversibility warning follows immediately, and the ID-source hint closes. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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, no-output-schema delete tool, the description covers action, irreversibility, and prerequisite ID source. It is close to complete, with only permission/error semantics left unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to obtain worklog_id via get_ticket. It does not clarify the ticket_id format beyond the schema's own example.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Delete a worklog from a Jira ticket') that cleanly separates it from update_worklog, log_work, and delete_comment. The scope (deleting an existing worklog, not the ticket) is unambiguous.

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?

Tells the agent where the required worklog_id comes from ('shown by get_ticket with include_worklogs'), which is genuine routing guidance toward a sibling. It does not, however, discuss when not to delete or contrast with update_worklog for corrections.

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