Fichar horas (crear imputación)

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

The description adds context about duration units and startTime format, and mentions post-creation application of certain fields. However, it is ambiguous about 'se aplican tras crear' (does it mean they are set automatically or can be changed later?). Annotations already indicate write operation, so no contradiction.

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, packing key information in one sentence. It could be improved by structuring bullet points or adding whitespace for readability, but it efficiently conveys the core use cases.

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 description covers the two main usage modes and some field meanings, but misses the endTime parameter entirely (present in schema but not described). Also, there is no indication of what the tool returns (e.g., created record ID), which is important since no output schema is provided.

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?

The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by clarifying duration unit (MINUTES), startTime format (epoch ms), and the conditional relationship between taskId/absenceId and projectIds. This compensates for the 60% schema coverage by grouping parameters logically.

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 it creates a time imputation for a person. It specifies the two modes: task+project or absence. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edit_time_record or clone_time_records.

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 some usage guidance by explaining when to use taskId vs absenceId, and notes that comment/nonBillable/wfh are applied after creation. However, it doesn't provide when-not-to-use or compare with alternatives like editing or cloning.

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