update_worklog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds useful context that it modifies Tracker data and should be confirmed with the user. It still does not clarify whether omitted/nullable fields are left unchanged or reset, which is the key behavioral question for this mutation.

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 no filler, and the mutation warning is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a 5-parameter mutation tool, however, the total absence of parameter semantics leaves an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description carries the full burden but explains none of them. Issues like the nullable start/comment/duration fields and the meaning of issue_id/worklog_id are left entirely undocumented.

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 and resource ('Изменить запись трудозатрат' = change a worklog entry), which clearly separates it from add_worklog/delete_worklog/list_worklogs siblings by the update verb. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or the condition that selects this one.

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 implies usage (an update operation) and adds a procedural safeguard ('show the new values to the user before calling'), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or prerequisites such as permissions or required identifiers.

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