Create Time Entry

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that setting billable=true includes the entry in client invoicing. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds valuable side-effect info. Does not discuss permissions or error conditions.

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 concise English sentences plus bilingual Spanish version, front-loaded with the main action. The example adds practical value. Slightly longer due to bilingual content but efficient overall.

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?

Given full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, key parameters, and an example. It does not address output or error handling, but those are covered by structured fields.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reiterates key points (decimal hours, ISO date) and adds billing semantics and an example that ties parameters together. This provides moderate additional clarity 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 clearly states 'Log a time entry for a project' (specific verb+resource) and lists required fields, effectively distinguishing it from sibling time entry tools like list, get, update, delete.

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 basic requirements (projectId, hours, date) and an example but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk import or other create tools). No exclusions or prerequisites beyond required fields.

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