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

The description reveals important non-obvious behavior well beyond the annotations: partial-field merge semantics, minutes moving end while keeping start, refusal of end at/before start, tags REPLACING the list, and rate units in major currency units. These are exactly the traps an agent needs to know.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs the critical edge-case rules without wasted words. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 the most important update semantics, but with 11 parameters and no output schema, it leaves some ambiguities: behavior when both end and minutes are passed, clearing fields with empty values, and what happens when the id is not found. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool this parameter-rich.

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 55% schema description coverage, the description compensates by adding meaning for minutes, end/start validation, tags replacement behavior, and rate units. It does not individually explain note, task, project, billable, or currency, but their types and names are reasonably self-explanatory and currency is partially covered in 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 opens with 'Change one logged entry by id', which names the verb, resource, and scope precisely. This clearly distinguishes entry_edit from siblings like entry_add, entry_delete, and entry_list.

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 gives clear operating context: it edits one existing entry by id and only moves provided fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling set makes the intended use obvious.

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