autotask_create_time_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the transparency burden. It accurately implies a write operation (creating a time entry) but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether creation triggers notifications, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits). The description is honest but incomplete in behavioral details.

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 long, immediately states the tool's purpose, and logically structures the two primary use cases. No unnecessary words; every sentence provides essential information.

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 12 parameters, the description adequately covers the primary decision (Regular Time vs linked) and key parameter choices (category, resourceName vs resourceID). It omits guidance on start/endDateTime and internalNotes, but schema descriptions handle those. For a creation tool with no output schema, the description is largely 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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the Regular Time concept and category usage, and clarifies the relationship between resourceID and resourceName. This exceeds schema alone.

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 (create) and resource (time entry) and distinguishes two usage modes: linked to a ticket/task/project or Regular Time. This differentiates it from sibling tools which focus on other entities like tickets, companies, or service calls.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use Regular Time vs linking to ticket/task/project, and lists example categories for Regular Time. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but no sibling tool creates time entries, so exclusion is implied.

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