Log the same time on several days

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

Adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: days already holding time for this project are skipped and reported, with the skip controlled by skip_existing (default true). The annotations already declare write/non-destructive/non-idempotent, so this extra context on skip semantics is the meaningful addition; it stops short of covering partial-failure or overwrite behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action (add the same entry on up to 31 dates) before the conditional skip rule.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the key edge case (existing time), though it leaves open what happens to a skipped day's data and whether minutes/duration are mutually exclusive.

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%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters, making 3 the correct baseline. The description only loosely echoes project/minutes/note and mentions skip_existing, adding no format or syntax detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource: adds the same time entry across up to 31 dates, with the fields (project, minutes, note) called out. It is clearly a batch variant of the sibling log_time, but it does not name log_time or otherwise explicitly distinguish itself from that sibling, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 batch nature (multiple dates, same entry) implies when to use it versus a single-day logger, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as log_time or set_day_totals.

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