Update a time entry

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

The description adds a crucial behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Clockify replaces the whole entry on update, so the current values are read first and only the given fields change.' This explains the read-modify-write approach and reassures about partial updates. Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this is valuable added context.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence gives the purpose, the second conveys a critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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 14-parameter schema with full descriptions, the tool is already well-documented structurally. The description adds the essential update semantics. No output schema exists, but for an update tool the response is not explicitly described; however the core behavior is sufficiently covered for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all 14 parameters. The description's mention that 'only the given fields change' adds a general semantic about optionality, but it does not provide per-parameter clarifications beyond what the schema already offers. Thus baseline 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 starts with 'Changes description, project, tags or times' which clearly identifies the action (changes) and resource (time entry), and names the specific fields that can be updated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create (log_time), delete, and get.

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 modifying an existing time entry but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. The note about Clockify replacing the whole entry suggests a safe partial-update workflow, but there is no direct 'use this when...' or 'use that instead' guidance.

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