Update Timesheet Status

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

The description discloses that the tool performs a partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed') and returns the modified object on success. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with the update operation. The description adds context about the HTTP method (PATCH) and endpoint, though it does not cover rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 three core sentences and additional API context. It front-loads the main action, followed by usage, return behavior, required parameters, and endpoint info. No extraneous information, each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value. It mentions 'returns the modified object on success', but does not specify the structure or possible error responses. Given the simplicity (2 params), the description is adequate but not fully 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats required parameters and ties project_id to a specific project, and clarifies that timesheets refer to Field Productivity records. This adds modest context beyond the schema descriptions, but does not provide deep semantic detail.

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 timesheet statuses to either 'pending' or 'approved' for a specific project. It specifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'Timesheet statuses', but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like update_timesheet_project, which may update different aspects of timesheets. The inclusion of the endpoint path adds specificity.

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 advises using this tool to update existing Field Productivity records and lists required parameters, but it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context of use is clear, but exclusion criteria or comparison with other update tools is missing.

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