Update Equipment Timecard Entry (Project)

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying it is a partial update (PATCH) and returns the modified object. However, it does not disclose auth needs, error handling, or rate limits. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, so no contradiction.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes essential details: what it does, partial update behavior, required parameters, and API context. No superfluous information; it could trim the endpoint path but it remains helpful.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the update behavior and required parameters. However, it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., need an existing entry), error cases, or return value details beyond 'modified object'. The API area mention adds some context.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the partial update behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed'), which clarifies how parameters are used. It also reinforces required parameters, but schema already details each parameter's role.

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 updates an existing equipment timecard entry (Field Productivity records), specifies 'only the supplied fields are changed' to indicate partial update, and lists required parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_equipment_timecard_entry_project' and create tools present in the server.

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 implies usage for updating existing records but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create or delete tools. The guidance is minimal and relies on implicit understanding from the purpose.

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