cor_log_hours

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a write operation (log hours), but does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency, whether logs can be overwritten, or any side effects. This lack of disclosure is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 short (two sentences in bilingual format) and front-loads the action and requirements. It is efficient but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for quicker scanning. Loses a point for unnecessary bilingual repetition if space is a concern.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basics but is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, log ID) or error conditions (e.g., invalid taskId, duplicate entry). The sibling tools include related list and update functions, but no cross-references are provided.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'Optionally add a description' and mentions hours format (e.g. 1.5). However, this adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., 'hours' already says 'Horas worked (e.g. 1.5)'). No additional constraints or context.

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: 'Registra horas trabajadas en COR para una tarea. / Log worked hours in COR for a task.' It specifies the resource (COR, task) and verb (log), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cor_list_hours (list) and cor_create_task (create task).

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 mentions required parameters (taskId, hours, date) and an optional description, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cor_update_task might modify hours, cor_list_hours to view logs). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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