Update Time Entry

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that it uses PATCH semantics, which is consistent. However, no additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements or side effects are disclosed beyond annotations.

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 concise with two sentences plus an example and bilingual translation. It is front-loaded with the core action. The bilingual text adds some length but is necessary for localization.

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 the presence of an output schema (as indicated), the description covers the essential operation and partial update behavior. It omits details on error handling or validation but is sufficient for an agent with access to the schema.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description's example illustrates usage but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Update an existing time entry using PATCH semantics', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_time_entry and other update tools by naming the specific resource and providing an example.

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 usage guidance ('Only provided fields are changed' and an example) but does not explain when to use versus alternatives, such as create_time_entry for new entries or when to avoid use (e.g., if the entry is locked).

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