freeagent_create_timeslip

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that the user defaults to the authenticated user, which is not obvious from annotations alone. It also references a necessary lookup step, which helps set expectations.

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, immediately states the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant information. 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?

For a create tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the default user behavior, and how to find the required task. It could mention the return value or potential errors, but the schema and annotations cover parameter details, so this is reasonably 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 coverage is 100% with each of the 6 parameters having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema (e.g., 'defaults to the authenticated user' duplicates the user parameter description). No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 action ('Log time') and the resource ('against a FreeAgent project task'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like freeagent_list_timeslips or freeagent_delete_timeslip. It also mentions the default user behavior, adding specificity.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (recording time against a task) and even points to the prerequisite tool 'freeagent_list_tasks' for finding the task. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a create operation the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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