Create a Tempo worklog (write, gated)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the write gating (env flag + confirm + token), post-write verification, and non-retry behavior on uncertain outcomes. It stops short of describing the response shape, error semantics, or permission scopes beyond the feature flag.

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?

Four tight sentences: purpose first, then hard prerequisites, then failure behavior. No restatement of the title and no filler; the gating conditions are front-loaded where an agent will read them.

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 safety model and failure handling that matter most. The remaining gap is parameter meaning for five required/optional fields, which nothing else in the definition supplies.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 7 parameters. It adds real meaning for two of them (confirm must be true; approvalToken must come from tempo_preview_worklog for the identical proposal), but issueKey, date, durationMinutes, description, and startTime are left entirely to the JSON Schema patterns and bounds.

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 and resource ('Create a Tempo worklog') and immediately differentiates itself from write-adjacent siblings by requiring an approvalToken from tempo_preview_worklog. An agent can distinguish this from tempo_update_worklog or tempo_preview_worklog without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the preconditions for use: user approval, WORKLOG_WRITE_ENABLED=true, confirm=true, and an approvalToken for the exact same proposal. It also states the tool refuses to run without all three, which is a clear when-not-to-call signal, and routes the agent to tempo_preview_worklog as the prerequisite step.

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