create_effort_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It mentions that actual work hours are a controlled field, but lacks details on required permissions, reversibility, side effects, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 sentence that conveys the essential information concisely. It is front-loaded with the purpose and a key usage note. It could benefit from more structure (e.g., separating usage from behavior), but it is efficient and to the point.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should mention return values but does not. It also fails to clarify prerequisites or permissions. While it covers the basic 'why' and 'when', it is incomplete regarding behavioral and output details for a create tool with 8 parameters.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: to register actual work hours (登记实际工时). It specifies the resource (actual time) and distinguishes itself from update_work_item by noting that actual hours cannot be modified via that tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when setting actual work hours, as they are controlled and cannot be changed via update_work_item. It provides clear context but does not include explicit exclusions or alternatives, though the sibling tool update_effort_record exists for updates.

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