clio_log_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses a critical behavioral trait: the entry becomes a billable line by default unless non_billable is set. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it omits other side effects like return values or editability.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. The key action and the most important behavioral consequence are stated upfront.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It explains the core purpose and billing default but does not describe return values, validation rules, or relationships to related entities like activity descriptions, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the entry is on a matter (giving context to matter_id) and that non_billable overrides the default billable status. It also reinforces that quantity is in hours, compensating for the 57% 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Log', the resource 'a time entry on a matter', and specifies 'hours' as the unit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clio_log_expense by explicitly focusing on time entries.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (logging time vs. expenses), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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