update_timesheet

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no information about whether fields are overwritten entirely, whether permissions are needed, or what the API response looks like. It doesn't contradict annotations but is unhelpful.

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 extremely short ('Edit a timesheet'), but conciseness is not the same as under-specification. While there is no wasted wording, the description fails to convey any actionable information. It is more an empty placeholder than a useful, front-loaded definition.

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?

With 14 parameters, 5 required, a nested tracking object, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to construct a valid call, what the tracking object requires, or how to interpret the response. This description provides no orientation and is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has 14 parameters with only 57% description coverage. The description itself mentions none of the parameters, required fields, or the two tracking formats (range vs duration). This is particularly inadequate given the nested tracking object and complex relations to users, clients, and activities. The description adds no value 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 'Edit a timesheet' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'update_timesheet' and title 'Update Timesheet', using a synonymous verb. It does not specify what fields or aspects of a timesheet can be edited, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like create_timesheet or delete_timesheet. This borders on tautology.

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 (e.g., existing timesheet), the difference between partial and full updates, or how it relates to create/get/delete timesheet operations. There is zero usage context.

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