add_worklog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is partly covered; the description reinforces this ('Изменяет данные в Трекере') and adds a confirm-with-user step, which is genuine extra context. It does not say whether the worklog is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how the change affects existing time reports, so it stays at an adequate-but-thin level.

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 short sentences with no filler: the action comes first, the safety/confirmation instruction second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutating four-parameter tool with no schema documentation, the description covers the action and the confirmation step but omits duration/date formats, the meaning of issue_id, and any pointer to the sibling worklog tools.

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 carries the burden, and it names three of the four fields (duration, start date, comment) in the confirmation instruction. However, issue_id goes unmentioned and no format guidance is given for duration (e.g. '2h 30m') or start (timezone/date format), leaving a real gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Списать время на задачу' – log time to an issue), which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like list_worklogs or get_issue_time_report. It stops short of naming the update_worklog/delete_worklog alternatives, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It gives one invocation-time instruction (show duration, start date, and comment to the user before calling), which is useful, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_worklog, delete_worklog, or the time-report tools. There is no when-not-to-use condition and no routing signal for the agent.

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