Update Timecard Entry (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it performs a partial update and returns the modified object, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or behavior when required fields are missing, which would further enhance transparency.

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 two sentences with additional lines for required parameters and API details. It is reasonably concise but contains redundancy (first sentence repeats the title) and could be streamlined. The key point about partial update is included, but the API endpoint line may be extraneous for most users.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, one being a nested object) and no output schema, the description should explain the structure of the 'timecard_entry' object and any constraints. It mentions the return value (modified object) but omits details about how to properly construct the request body. The description also lacks information about error conditions or required relationships, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates the required parameters and implies that 'timecard_entry' can be a partial object, but it does not explain the internal structure or valid fields of 'timecard_entry'. Thus, it adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 tool updates an existing timecard entry at the company level, using the verb 'update' and specifying the resource as 'Field Productivity records'. It mentions partial update behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the project-level update tool ('update_timecard_entry_project'), which is a sibling but not named in the description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_timecard_entry_project' or 'bulk_update_timecard_entries'. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred over others. A user must infer from the title and endpoint that it operates at the company level, but no explicit usage advice is given.

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