Update Timesheet

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

The description confirms the tool performs updates and returns the modified object, which aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. The annotations already provide basic cues, so the description adds marginal value.

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, concisely covering purpose, behavior (only supplied fields changed), and endpoint details. It is front-loaded with the main action. Some redundancy (e.g., 'Update Timesheet associated with the specific Project' and later 'updates the specified Field Productivity records') is present but not excessive.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, how it works (PATCH, only supplied fields updated), and required parameters. It mentions the return value. It does not address potential errors or prerequisites, but for a straightforward update tool this is sufficient.

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% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It redundantly lists required parameters (already in schema) and does not explain the format or constraints for the 'date' parameter. Thus, it adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 a timesheet for a specific project and mentions it is for Field Productivity records. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'update_timesheet_project_v1_0', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 when to use the tool (to update existing records) and that only supplied fields are changed. It lists required parameters but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as other update or create tools.

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