op_log_time

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

The description adds genuinely valuable behavior beyond the annotations: the entry is always attributed to the API key's own user because OpenProject makes that field read-only, and the result includes hoursLedger when the local ledger is installed, making double-logging visible at write time. This is exactly the kind of context (auth constraints, side-effect visibility) that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the hours format nuance, the attribution constraint, and the ledger side-effect. The hours-format sentence slightly duplicates the schema's hours description, but it is a critical calling detail worth front-loading. No filler or repetition of annotation flags.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the most decision-relevant nuances: accepted hours formats, attribution limits, and the conditional hoursLedger field in the result. It stops short of describing the general return shape or failure behavior, but the coverage is well above the minimum viable level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the hours format (decimal or ISO-8601) that the schema already documents, adding no new meaning for comment, spentOn, activity, or workPackage. The description neither compensates for a gap nor adds semantic depth 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 opening sentence "Log time against a work package" uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this write operation from the sibling listing tool op_list_time_entries and from op_comment_work_package. An agent can determine what this tool does and what it is not without deep schema inspection.

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 intended use is strongly implied by the name and first sentence, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over an alternative (e.g., when to use op_list_time_entries to read existing entries, or op_list_time_entry_activities to resolve activity values). No exclusions or routing conditions are given, leaving usage to inference.

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