log_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the logging action and describes parameters, but does not mention that this creates a new time entry, any side effects like updating project totals, permission requirements, or what the response will contain. For a write operation, this level of transparency is insufficient.

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 begins with a one-sentence purpose and follows with a clear, bullet-like list of parameter explanations. Every line provides useful information without redundancy, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description thoroughly covers all parameters, their constraints, and references helpful sibling tools. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., existing project/issue) and validation rules, but the parameter clarity and external references make it nearly complete for a create operation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It does so comprehensively: hours with an example, date format, mutual exclusivity of issue_id and project_identifier, activity_id lookup via list_time_entry_activities, and comment purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 action 'Log time spent' with a specific verb and resource, and notes it can be tied to either an issue or a project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_time_entries, update_time_entry, and delete_time_entry, which represent other operations on time entries.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to log hours worked against an issue or project. It also gives a key constraint (use issue_id OR project_identifier, not both) and directs users to list_time_entry_activities for valid activity IDs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as update_time_entry for modifying existing entries, so exclusions are missing.

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