Update Timelog

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

The word 'Patch' indicates mutation, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds little beyond that; it does not explain partial-update semantics, side effects, or response behavior. Since the annotations already cover the safety profile, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes minimal behavioral context beyond 'Patch'.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the unit clarification is parenthesized, and the ID-sourcing guidance is placed second. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 a 100%-covered schema, eight sibling tools, and no output schema, the description gives the agent the essential call path: patch an existing timelog and get IDs from the two specified getters. It does not describe the response shape or explicitly confirm that omitted fields remain unchanged, but 'Patch' plus the idempotentHint make these gaps minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating that timeSpentMinutes is in minutes and, more importantly, by telling the agent where to source logId and cardId from the two timelog-getting tools, which is provenance not present 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 the specific verb 'Patch' and the resource 'a timelog', making the operation unmistakable. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling timelog tools like create_timelog, delete_timelog, and get_user_timelogs by naming the two getter endpoints that supply the required IDs.

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 context by directing the agent to kaiten_get_card_timelogs or kaiten_get_user_timelogs to obtain logId and cardId. It implies this tool is for modifying an existing timelog, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with creating or deleting a timelog.

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