jira_worklog_delete

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: irreversible operation, mandatory confirm parameter to proceed (without which no API call is made), and return format (YAML `{status: ok}`). This is excellent coverage.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then details on confirmation, and finalizes with return format and mirror command.

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?

Given the tool is a simple delete operation with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: how to specify the worklog, the confirm requirement, irreversibility, return value, and referencing the list tool for the ID. It is fully 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context: `key` and `worklog_id` are identifiers, and `confirm` is a safety switch. It explains the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema descriptions.

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 ('Delete'), the resource ('JIRA worklog'), and how to identify it (by `key` + `worklog_id`). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like `jira_worklog_add` and `jira_worklog_update`.

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 explicitly says to use `confirm: true` to authorize the irreversible delete and mentions getting the id from `jira_worklog_list`. It provides usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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