Duplicate Kimai Timesheet

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that this is a sensitive edit requiring authorization and that backups are saved. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the need for human oversight and data preservation.

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 long, with the most critical instruction ('sensitive edit, call only after explicit human authorization') placed first. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core operation (duplicate), the authorization requirement, and backup behavior. For a mutation tool with moderate complexity, this provides sufficient completeness, though it could optionally mention what happens to the original timesheet (it remains unchanged, implied by 'duplicate').

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 coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters (id, response_format, authorization_note, authorization_confirmed). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Duplicate') and explicitly names the resource ('existing Kimai timesheet'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like 'kimai_create_timesheet' (create new) and 'kimai_update_timesheet' (modify).

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 explicitly states 'Sensitive edit: call only after explicit human authorization,' providing a clear precondition. It also notes that the source and created record are saved to a temp backup file, which implies a safety net. However, it does not compare to alternatives or specify when not to use it.

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