Validate a worklog proposal

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 names the tool as non-mutating and non-approving and discloses that the output is errors plus warnings. It does not mention permission requirements for access checks or any call cost/limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 waste; the positive scope comes first and the negative boundary clause is front-loaded at the end where it reads as a guardrail.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states that validation errors and warnings are returned, which is the key return-value fact. It stops short of explaining whether validation is all-or-nothing or per-field, a minor gap for a read-only validator.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names the concepts being checked (issue key, date, duration, description, plus timezone/start-time warnings), giving partial mapping, but adds no format or constraint detail such as minute units, the 1-1440 range, or that startTime is optional.

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 (validate) and resource (proposed worklog), then enumerates the exact checks performed: issue existence/access, date, duration, description, timezone. The closing sentence explicitly separates it from write/approve siblings such as tempo_create_worklog, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

The negation ('Does NOT write and does NOT approve anything') implies this is a pre-flight check before creating a worklog, but the description never says so explicitly, nor does it route the agent between this tool and the close sibling tempo_preview_worklog. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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