add_worklog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states no side effects, permissions, notification behavior, estimate-adjustment implications, or response semantics. The only behavioral signal is the verb 'Add', which is already obvious from the tool name.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Every other dimension suffers from the absence of detail, and the two-word description does not earn its place by conveying any useful information beyond the tool name.

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 tool with 8 parameters, a nested body object, no annotations, no output schema, and many closely related siblings, this description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine the required body format, the meaning of worklog fields, or how the operation affects the issue's time estimate from this definition.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter information. The schema provides descriptions for most top-level parameters, though some are truncated and the nested 'body' object's fields lack individual descriptions. The tool description itself adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Add worklog' simply restates the tool name 'add_worklog' without explaining what a worklog is, what it records, or how it relates to an issue. It is a tautology rather than a meaningful definition, and it provides no distinction from sibling worklog tools like update_worklog or get_issue_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_comment, update_worklog, or get_issue_worklog. There is no mention of prerequisites, required issue context, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer entirely from the tool name and schema.

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