create_effort_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the field is controlled and requires this tool, which adds context. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, side effects, or response format. The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and provides a key usage note. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability.

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 8 parameters (5 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, success indicators, or error conditions. While it clarifies why this tool exists, it leaves gaps in understanding the full interaction, especially since annotations are absent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the field's controlled nature, but that is more about the tool's purpose than individual parameter semantics.

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's purpose: registering actual work hours (登记实际工时). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from update_work_item by explaining that the controlled field cannot be modified via that sibling tool. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiation.

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 tells when to use this tool: for modifying the controlled actual hours field, and not to use update_work_item for that purpose. It names an alternative (update_work_item) but does not cover other potential use cases or exclusions.

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