jira_worklog_add

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It states the tool returns YAML {status: ok} and accepts a duration format, but does not disclose potential error scenarios, permissions needed, or side effects beyond adding a worklog.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by format and return value. It is efficient without unnecessary words, though the reference to a command could be removed for even greater conciseness.

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 description covers purpose, input format, and output structure, but lacks context on prerequisite permissions, error handling, or behavior when the issue key is invalid. For a simple tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the time_spent format with an example already in the schema, adding no new semantic information about the parameters themselves.

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 'Log time on a JIRA issue' with a specific verb and resource. It also provides format details and distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_worklog_list by focusing on adding rather than listing.

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 implicitly says when to use (when logging time) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool vs alternatives like jira_write or jira_transition. The mention of mirroring a command is not a clear usage guideline.

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