Update Time Tracking Entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which covers safety and idempotency. The description adds that the operation returns the updated entry with specific fields, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return value details. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 relatively simple update tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the return value and the schema covers inputs. Minor gaps like whether both fields can be updated simultaneously are not explicitly stated, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's 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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'duration or date' which maps to existing parameters, adding no new meaning beyond what schema already provides.

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 ('Update the duration or date') and the resource ('existing time tracking entry'), distinguishing it from sibling create/delete/get tools. The specific fields (duration, date) are named, making intent unmistakable.

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 phrase 'existing time tracking entry' provides clear context that this is for modifying entries that already exist, and the sibling names (create/delete/get) make alternatives obvious. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or list exclusions.

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