edit_hours

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial update behavior ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and the invoice lock condition. It does not cover rate limits or other side effects, but the provided info is sufficient for safe operation.

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 three focused sentences: first states purpose, second adds behavioral nuance, third lists requirement. No extraneous 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 7 parameters (1 required) and an existing output schema, the description covers main behaviors and constraints but lacks detailed parameter explanations. It adequately informs about the partial update and invoice lock, but more details on editable fields would improve completeness.

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 0%, and the description only mentions that only passed fields are changed, without explaining individual parameters like date, rate, hours, etc. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema for each parameter.

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 'Edit an existing time entry', specifying the verb (edit) and resource (existing time entry). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'log_hours' which creates new entries.

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 advises confirming with the user before editing entries on sent/paid invoices due to a server block, providing clear contextual guidance. It also lists the required permission 'timesheet:write', but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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