write_log_time

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the two data-model cases, default role selection, default person and date, and the fact that Targetprocess names TimeRecord entries itself. With destructiveHint and openWorldHint already provided, this adds useful context without contradicting them.

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 key action is front-loaded and every sentence contributes relevant detail. The conditional second half is dense and slightly run-on, but it contains no filler and is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary call context, parameter defaults, and the two possible record-creation behaviors. It lacks explicit return behavior and units for `spent`, but the annotations fill the safety profile, making it sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 important semantics for date format/default, person default, and role default logic, which are not fully present in the schema. However, required parameters like `id` and `spent` still rely on inference, and `description` is not explained, only partially compensating for the 43% schema coverage.

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?

Opens with a concrete action ('Log time spent on a card for a person') and clearly identifies the resource and default subject. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read_* and write_* tools by focusing specifically on time logging rather than general card updates or reads.

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 the tool applies and even branches based on whether the process tracks time or uses a TimeRecord type. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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