Log a whole day

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

Discloses a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: 'Each entry reports its own result, so one bad line does not lose the rest' which clarifies partial-failure handling. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false) align with the mutating nature of 'Writes'. More could be said about auth or prerequisites, but this added context is valuable.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the action and purpose, the second adds behavioral nuance. No wasted 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?

Given the moderate complexity of batch logging, the description covers the core intent and the per-entry reporting behavior. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the mention that each entry reports its own result. It could mention response shape or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not go beyond the schema, leaving the baseline of 3 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 states a specific action ('Writes several finished entries in one call') with a clear resource scope ('a full workday reconstructed from notes or commits'). It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool clockify_log_time by emphasizing batch writing.

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 conveys a clear use case (bulk logging of a full workday) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like clockify_log_time for single entries. It provides clear context without explicit exclusions.

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