add_worklog

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden: it discloses that the tool creates a real worklog under the user's name, cannot be undone, and is the only write tool—providing essential behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is relatively long but well-structured with a critical warning front-loaded, followed by clear arg definitions. Every sentence adds value, though the overall length could be slightly trimmed while retaining clarity.

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?

Given no annotations and the tool's write nature, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage rules, behavior, all parameters with examples, and mentions return value (even with an output schema). No gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains all parameters: 'issue_key' format, 'time_spent' Jira syntax with examples, 'started' formats and defaults, and 'comment' optionality. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states it logs time on a Jira issue and uniquely identifies itself as the only write tool among siblings, effectively distinguishing it from read-only tools like 'get_user_worklog'.

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 instructs to call only on user's explicit request and warns against calling on its own initiative, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings are implicitly contrasted as read-only.

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