log_time

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

No annotations were provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes parameters and return value but does not mention idempotency, side effects on existing time entries, permission requirements, or error handling. The agent cannot judge if this is a mutation that could overwrite data or if it requires specific scopes.

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 concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a structured list of args. Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded and well-organized.

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 description covers parameter semantics and return value adequately but lacks context on edge cases, error responses, and behavioral constraints. Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), more completeness would be needed for a fully reliable agent invocation. It meets minimal viability.

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 0%, so the description fully explains each parameter. It provides formats (e.g., 'ON-914' for card_ref, ISO date), defaults (today for date, token owner for user_id), and meaning (minutes as time spent, description as what was done). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Log time spent on a card.' This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_time_entries (reading) and log_activity (general activity logging). No ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., card must exist) or scenarios where other tools like list_time_entries would be more appropriate. The only implicit guidance is the required parameters.

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