Registrar entrada en la bitácora

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses one key behavior (pending assignment), but omits other important aspects such as success/failure effects, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient 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 one sentence, concise, and directly states key information about behavior and a follow-up action. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief to cover important aspects like return value, error handling, or prerequisites. It only hints at one behavioral nuance (pending assignment) but lacks broader context (e.g., how this compares to edit_entry or upload_entries, or what happens on success/failure).

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 only 44% (4 of 9 parameters have descriptions). The description adds semantic detail only for workPackageId (pending assignment) but leaves other parameters (hours, startTime, endTime, projectId, etc.) without clarification. While the schema provides some descriptions, the tool description does not compensate adequately for the undocumented params.

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 verb+resource ('Registra una entrada de horas en la bitácora local') and specifies a key conditional behavior (pending assignment when no workPackageId). It distinguishes this tool as the primary entry-creation action, though it doesn't contrast with sibling tools like upload_entries or list_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?

It references assign_entry for handling entries without workPackageId, providing a workflow hint alerting the agent that unassigned entries can be later processed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like upload_entries or edit_entry, nor any preconditions or typical use cases.

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