reclaim_log_workLog completed work time against a task. Reclaim REST: POST /api/planner/log-work/task/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The task id. | |
| end | No | End time of the logged work (ISO-8601 Zulu datetime → query param end). | |
| minutes | Yes | Minutes of work to log (→ query param minutes). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the action and the REST endpoint. It adds no behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, such as what gets modified, whether logging is reversible, or if any permissions are required. The annotation covers the safety signal, but the description itself contributes little.
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 sentence plus the REST endpoint, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place and there is no irrelevant information.
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 simple mutation with all parameters documented in the schema and the destructiveHint annotation flagging side effects. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the response looks like or what the side effects actually are, leaving the agent with incomplete information for a full understanding.
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?
The description does not mention parameters, but the input schema fully documents all three parameters (id, end, minutes) with descriptions. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the semantic weight, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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: 'Log completed work time against a task.' The verb 'log' and the resource 'task' are specific, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, update_task, start_task, or stop_task, which perform different operations.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives such as reclaim_start_task or reclaim_stop_task, which might be related to tracking work time.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.