Update Timecard Entry

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that omitted fields retain values, that the modified entry is returned on success, and details failure modes with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404) for token expiry, permissions, and unresolved ids. This adds value beyond 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 a single, dense paragraph of about five sentences. Each sentence contributes essential information: purpose, partial update, id prerequisite, return value, error codes, and endpoint. It is concise but slightly dense, so not a perfect 5.

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 mutation tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers return value, error handling, and id resolution. It lacks explicit guidance on which sibling scoped variant to use, but the endpoint and overall context make it sufficiently complete.

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 descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaningful context by stating partial-update semantics for the timecard_entry object and listing required parameters. It clarifies how to use the nested object, which the schema does not.

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 'Update a specified Timecard Entry' with a specific verb and resource, and provides the endpoint PATCH /rest/v1.0/timecard_entries/{id}. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_timecard_entry_company or update_timecard_entry_project, but the endpoint gives context.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' and instructs to resolve id with the matching list tool first. It does not mention alternatives or when-not to use, but the context is clear.

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