Subir entries a OpenProject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions selection logic and required fields (workPackageId, activityId), but does not state what happens to entries after upload (e.g., marked as sent, deleted, or any side effects). For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and wastes no words. It concisely conveys the action, the parameter behavior, and required entry fields.

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 one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and edge case (omitting entryIds). However, it lacks important contextual details about post-upload side effects or return behavior, which would be necessary for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's impact.

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 only parameter, entryIds, is already well documented in the schema with a description that matches the tool description. The description adds context about entry prerequisites (workPackageId and activityId), but this does not directly enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: 'Sube a OpenProject las entries indicadas' (uploads specified entries to OpenProject). It also clarifies the fallback behavior when entryIds is omitted, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_entry or delete_entry that perform different 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 explains when to upload specific entries versus all pending ones, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like log_entry. The context of uploading entries is implicit, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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