autotask_create_time_entry

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool can create time entries linked to work items or standalone as Regular Time, which is the core behavior. It does not cover rate limits, authorization requirements, or potential side effects, but the primary actions are transparent.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose, the second explaining the two usage modes, and the third providing category examples. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key usage patterns: linking to tickets/tasks/projects versus Regular Time. It does not explain the return value or any constraints, but the parameter descriptions in the schema are thorough. It is mostly 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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 12 parameters. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema, such as elaborating on the 'category' parameter with more examples and explaining the alternative between 'resourceID' and 'resourceName'.

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 creates a time entry in Autotask and distinguishes between linking to a ticket/task/project or creating as 'Regular Time' with a category. The verb 'create' and resource 'time entry' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like autotask_search_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?

The description explicitly explains when to use 'Regular Time' (no parent) and provides category examples. It indicates the tool can tie to a ticket, task, or project, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list prerequisites. However, the guidance is clear for common scenarios.

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