jira_worklog_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: partial updates ('omitted fields keep their current value'), the need for at least one field, and the return format ('YAML {status: ok}'). It does not cover permissions or error cases, but adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, includes necessary parameters, and provides return info and a reference command. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is a mutation with 5 parameters, but the description covers purpose, identifiers, editable fields, partial-update behavior, and return format. The lack of an output schema is compensated by stating the return YAML. It could mention error conditions or permissions, but for an edit tool with strong schema coverage, it is sufficiently 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 critical meaning by explaining the 'at least one' requirement among time_spent, started, and comment, and by providing format examples (e.g., '1h 30m' for durations and ISO 8601 for started). This goes beyond the schema's per-field 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 tool's function: 'Edit an existing JIRA worklog' with specific identifiers (key + worklog_id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_worklog_add and jira_worklog_delete by focusing on editing existing entries and referencing jira_worklog_list as the source for the 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?

Provides clear usage context by specifying the prerequisite ('get the id from jira_worklog_list') and the requirement to supply at least one editable field. It implies this tool is for modifications, not additions or deletions, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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