Update 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 safety burden well: writes must be enabled, confirm must be true, and the token must match the exact worklogId and change set, which implies the update is rejected on mismatch. It does not disclose whether 'changes' is a partial patch or a full replacement, nor any token expiry or error-response behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then scope boundary. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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, no output schema, and a nested changes object, the description covers gating and approval requirements thoroughly. The remaining gap is semantic: whether the changes object merges with or overwrites existing field values, which materially affects how an agent should populate it.

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; it does so for the two non-obvious parameters, pinning confirm=true and defining approvalToken's provenance and matching constraint. worklogId and the nested changes fields are left to self-explanatory names and JSON constraints (patterns, min/max) rather than prose.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing Tempo worklog'), with 'existing' implicitly separating it from tempo_create_worklog. The closing note that no deletion exists in this MVP further fences the tool's scope against ambiguous destructive expectations.

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 precondition (explicit user approval) and the mandatory workflow: obtain an approvalToken from tempo_preview_worklog with operation="update" for the exact same worklogId and changes. It routes the agent to the correct sibling and states what must happen before invocation.

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