float-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation operation ('create'), implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling for partial failures, or rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Create multiple logged time entries at once') and adds clarifying context ('for batch time logging'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a creation tool with well-documented parameters. It clearly indicates the tool's purpose and batch nature, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or response format, which are important for a bulk mutation tool.

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%, with detailed descriptions for all nested properties (e.g., 'people_id', 'date format YYYY-MM-DD', 'billable as 1/0'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('create') and resource ('multiple logged time entries'), specifying it's for batch operations. It distinguishes from the sibling 'create-logged-time' by emphasizing 'multiple... at once' for batch processing, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 context through 'batch time logging' and 'at once', suggesting this tool is for bulk operations rather than single entries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'create-logged-time' or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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