update_effort_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the field is controlled and cannot be updated via another path, which is valuable. However, it does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, or response behavior. Since no annotations exist, this is a moderate disclosure but not comprehensive for a mutating 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, concise sentence that includes the purpose and a key constraint (the field is controlled). It is direct and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words.

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 description gives the essential purpose and a specific constraint (cannot use update_work_item.customFieldValues). For a tool with 9 parameters, all covered by schema, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context but lacks guidance on typical usage scenarios (e.g., when to update vs. create) and any behavioral expectations (e.g., idempotency, permissions). It's minimal but not incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond what's in the schema, which is expected. It does implicitly highlight the 'actualTime' field as the core subject, but still, the description adds minimal value over 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update actual work hours' with a specific verb (update/更新) and resource (已登记的实际工时/registered actual work hours). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from update_work_item.customFieldValues, noting that the actual hours field is governed and cannot be updated via that alternative, effectively differentiating from sibling tools.

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 provides context in the [Project Management] prefix and explains when NOT to use another tool (update_work_item.customFieldValues), giving an implicit alternative. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use triggers or exclusions beyond the single note about the field constraint, so it's slightly above average but not fully explicit.

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