weeek_manage_time_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It's a mutation tool (log/edit/delete) but doesn't disclose side effects, whether changes are reversible, that update must target an existing entry, or if permissions are required. It does NOT contradict annotations since none exist, so no contradiction flag.

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 a single concise sentence that covers the main operations and critical parameter requirements in clear prose. It's efficient without excess. Could arguably front-load the delete action, but overall tight.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It's an action-dispatching tool covering three distinct behaviors (create/update/delete) with different required fields. The description should explain behavioral differences per action, return behavior, and edge cases, but only states parameter requirements. For a multi-action CRUD tool with 57% schema coverage, this is inadequate.

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 57%, covering date, user_id, duration, entry_id, and is_overtime. The description adds action-specific parameter requirements (create/update vs delete), which is useful beyond the schema. However, it doesn't clarify is_overtime semantics or how duration/date interact. Baseline 3 with the action-routing info marginally adding value.

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 can log time on a task, or edit/delete a logged entry. It uses a clear verb+resource structure (log/edit/delete time entries). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like weeek_task_timer, though the names are reasonably distinct.

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 specifies which parameters each action needs ('create and update need user_id, date, duration; delete needs entry_id'), giving helpful action-specific guidance. However, it doesn't provide when-to-use vs alternatives context or any exclusions. The usage guidance is action-routing rather than alternative-selection guidance.

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