Create Timesheet

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, side effects, or failure modes. The description barely supplements the annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and includes only relevant details (required parameters, success response, API module). No superfluous content.

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 simple creation tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, required parameters, success response, and API context. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly mention error scenarios or permissions.

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 both parameters already described. The description reiterates that project_id and date are required and adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a new Timesheet associated with a project, specifies the resource (Field Productivity records), and indicates the HTTP status code and return value. It distinguishes the action from the many sibling tools by focusing on creation.

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 mentions 'Use this to create a new Field Productivity records' but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_timesheet, delete_timesheet) or any exclusions. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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