add_worklog

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that this is a write/mutation operation, any permission requirements, potential side effects (like creating a log entry), or what happens on success/failure. The phrase 'Add' implies mutation, but no further behavioral context is given.

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 a single concise sentence that clearly conveys the core action and target. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (3 flat params, no output schema), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of return value, error behavior, or confirmation of the write operation, which would be valuable given no annotations or output schema.

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%, covering issueKey, timeSpent, and comment with examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for well-documented 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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('time log (worklog)') with a specific target ('to an issue or subtask'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_worklogs (read-only) and add_comment (different content type).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer add_worklog over add_comment or list_worklogs, nor any prerequisites or context. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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