time_log_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a prerequisite and a constraint on duration_minutes, but it does not disclose the actual side effects of applying (e.g., creating a record, irreversibility, permission needs). This is a modest addition but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and prerequisite. However, it is arguably too terse, omitting details that would fit without bloat. It is concise but under-specified.

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 an output schema (not fully shown), which reduces the need to explain return values. Yet the description leaves out parameter semantics for three of four params and gives limited behavioral context. For an apply-type operation following preview, the description provides the essential workflow link but lacks depth.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only duration_minutes must be a positive integer, but gives no semantics for item_id, date, or note. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb+resource, '实际记录工时' (actually record work hours), and explicitly frames it as the apply step after preview. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling time_log_preview by indicating it is the final recording action.

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?

It explicitly states a prerequisite: '需先 preview 且通过裁决' (must preview first and pass adjudication), giving clear context on when to use this tool relative to the preview tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond the implied preview step.

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