Update Timecard Entry

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns the modified object, which provides some behavioral detail beyond annotations, but no additional side effects or prerequisites are disclosed.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy between 'Update a specified Timecard Entry' and 'Updates the specified Field Productivity records' can be streamlined, but it's still efficient.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key points: partial updates, required parameters, and API context. It doesn't detail the timecard_entry object shape, but the schema notes it as open (additionalProperties: true). Completeness is adequate given the schema richness.

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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters. The description restates that these are required but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The API endpoint info is auxiliary.

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. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_timecard_entry and delete_timecard_entry by emphasizing 'update an existing' record.

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 indicates this tool is for updating existing records ('only the supplied fields are changed'), which implies it should not be used for creation. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, though sibling tools provide context.

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