update_worklog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait — that Type of Work/Activity is immutable here and requires delete-plus-re-log — but says nothing about permission requirements, whether omitted fields are left unchanged (partial vs. full replace), or reversibility of edits.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the ID-sourcing hint and immutability caveat follow in priority order.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the edit scope and one key constraint but omits partial-update semantics, required permissions, and what a successful response contains. Adequate to invoke, incomplete to invoke confidently.

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 including ticket_id and worklog_id already carry examples and formats. The description names the editable fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (Edit) plus the exact mutable fields (time, start, comment) on a named resource (worklog), and implicitly separates itself from log_work (creation) and delete_worklog by describing the delete+re-log path for Activity changes. An agent can distinguish it from all four worklog/comment siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete routing: worklog IDs come from get_ticket with include_worklogs, and it explicitly names the alternative (delete_worklog + log_work) for the one case this tool cannot handle. It stops short of stating prerequisites like edit permissions or whether the caller must own the worklog.

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