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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it names the auth requirement (Read & Write API key), discloses downstream side effects (affects reports and billing), and states retry behavior (no automatic retries). These are exactly the traits annotations do not convey.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: operation, auth, consequence, retry semantics. The operation is front-loaded after the WRITE marker.

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?

No output schema and thin annotations mean the description carries the load, and it adequately covers auth, side effects, and retry behavior for a create. It is slightly incomplete on parameter meaning (minutes/note) and on duplicate-entry behavior, but the core an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only references resource, project, and date conceptually. It never explains that 'minutes' is worked time (1-1440) or what 'note' is for, leaving the two most ambiguous params to the bare 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?

States a specific verb (Create), resource (time entry), and scope (a resource and project on one date). The 'WRITE:' prefix and singular-entry framing distinguish it clearly from the get/list/search_time_entries siblings.

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 'WRITE:' label and 'verify details first' imply this is the mutation path versus read siblings, and 'No automatic retries' tells the agent to retry deliberately. It never explicitly names an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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