log_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool creates a time entry (POST), which implies mutation. It mentions that date defaults to today and startHour defaults to 9, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate entries. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple logging 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 a single sentence of 20 words, front-loading the purpose and then specifying requirements. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and required fields. However, it does not explain the return value (e.g., success status or entry ID), error cases, or constraints like maximum minutes. The context is somewhat complete but lacks details that would help the agent handle edge cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the context of 'offline time' and the HTTP method, but restates that projectId, taskId, and minutes are required, while the schema shows projectId and taskId as optional (with defaults). This slight inconsistency reduces clarity. The added value is marginal, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: logging offline time to Worksnaps. It specifies the HTTP method and resource (POST /projects/{projectId}/time_entries.xml) and lists required parameters. It is distinct from the sibling tools, which are all read/list operations.

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 explicit prerequisites (requires projectId, taskId, and minutes), which guides the agent on what must be supplied. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions where it should not be used. It is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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