log_interval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context about wall-clock times and the user's timezone, and the 'yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm' format. However, it does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on success, or any permission requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys essential information without any fluff. It is concise yet informative.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only the core purpose and time format. It omits details about return values, parameter dependencies, and error conditions. For a tool of this complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 71%, so the baseline is around 3. The description clarifies the time format and timezone, which adds meaning to the from, to, and timezone parameters. It does not clarify the relationship between type_id and type_name, nor the semantics of tags and comment, so it doesn't fully compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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: to retroactively log a completed time entry for an activity type. The verb 'log' combined with 'retroactively' distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_activity and stop_activity, which handle current sessions.

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 phrase 'retroactively log a completed time entry' provides clear context: this tool is for past entries, not current tracking. It implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The context is strong enough that an agent would understand when to invoke this tool.

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