fix_actual_times

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that past dates are allowed and describes the clear flags and their effects (e.g., 'use calculated value' for clear_duration). However, it does not state what happens when conflicting values are provided (e.g., both actual_start and clear_start), nor does it explicitly warn that existing values are overwritten.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It provides necessary detail without unnecessary words, earning a top score.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no annotations, but the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return value, and a key constraint (past dates). It lacks explicit conflict-resolution rules between set and clear flags, making it not fully complete, but close.

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 0%, but the description's Args section comprehensively explains all 7 parameters with examples (ISO format, duration notation like '0.5 = 30min'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fix') and identifies the resource ('actual start/end timestamps for a task'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling task-management operations like start_task or update_task. The phrase 'for historical accuracy' adds context.

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?

It states 'Used to correct timestamps for historical accuracy' and 'Past dates allowed', giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use, so it falls just short of a 5.

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