toggl_update_time_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, consequences of updating start/stop/duration, or required permissions. The description only says 'modify' without detailing side effects or constraints.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., start/stop vs duration), whether billable and tags are optional, or what the response looks like.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the baseline is lowered. The description merely lists examples (description, project assignment, start/stop times) without adding meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the relationship between start, stop, and duration, or what 'project_id: null' means.

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 'Update an existing time entry' and lists modifiable fields like description, project assignment, start/stop times. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_time_entry, delete_time_entry, and stop_time_entry.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to modify a time entry), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like toggl_stop_time_entry or toggl_create_time_entry.

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