jira_worklog_update

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

Describes the partial update behavior (only supplied fields changed) and the return format (YAML {status: ok}). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. Adequate for a straightforward edit operation.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, parameter usage, and return format. No redundant information. Front-loaded with essential details. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 no output schema, the description covers return format. Parameters are fully described in schema and augmented by description. Could mention error handling or permission requirements, but sufficient for an update tool with 5 parameters and no complex output.

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%, and the description adds meaning by specifying that at least one optional parameter must be supplied and that omitted fields keep their current value. Provides format examples for time_spent and started, enhancing understanding beyond the 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 'Edit an existing JIRA worklog' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like jira_worklog_add and jira_worklog_delete by focusing on editing, and references jira_worklog_list to obtain the worklog ID.

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?

Explicitly instructs to supply at least one of the optional fields and that omitted fields retain their current value. Gives guidance on obtaining the worklog_id from jira_worklog_list. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool (e.g., for creating or deleting worklogs), but clear context makes it effective.

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