log_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavior: duration alone books the period ending now, and missing times must be requested from the user rather than approximated. It does not discuss idempotency or failure effects, but the write effect is plainly labeled and the output schema is present.

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?

Three introductory sentences plus a compact Args block; every line adds information about valid values or behavior, and the headline 'write a finished time entry' is front-loaded.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the definition explains all parameter formats, the accepted time-entry shapes, and the no-guessing rule. The presence of an output schema relieves it of needing to document return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

Input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates fully: each Arg line gives meaning plus concrete formats (e.g. start '09:00', '9am', '14.30'; duration '1h30m', '90m', '1.5h', '1:30'), and clarifies that activity must be valid for the project.

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?

Verb 'Write' plus object 'a finished time entry to Kimai' names the mutation and the external system. The phrase 'finished time entry' distinguishes it from start_timer/active_timers/stop_timer among 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?

States the three valid time-input combinations and instructs to ask the user rather than guess missing times, defining when it is safe to call. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as start_timer, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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