Log finished work

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining timezone behavior: times are local to the account's zone and natural language like 'yesterday 09:00 for 2h30m' lands correctly. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the timezone example adds valuable context without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

Despite 14 parameters, the schema covers them thoroughly, so the description only needs to convey global behavior. It does so effectively, but it misses a brief distinction from related tools like log_many and does not mention what the API returns on success. Still, for a simple create operation, this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% per context signals, and each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., start, end, date, duration). The timezone note in the description reinforces but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Writes a completed time entry' uses a specific verb ('writes') and resource ('completed time entry'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like start_timer (active tracking), update_time_entry (modifying), and log_many (multiple entries). The scope is precise and 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 implies usage for logging finished work ('completed time entry'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is no reference to when to use this versus log_many or start_timer, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names and context.

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