Create Time Entry

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation), and the description adds behavioral context: marking billable=true includes in client invoicing, and userId defaults to API key owner. No contradiction with 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 concise with two sentences and an example, front-loading the main purpose. The Spanish translation adds length but is acceptable for bilingual requirements.

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 6 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential usage. It doesn't explain the 'description' parameter but the schema does. Adequate for a create 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value. It reinforces that hours are decimal, date is ISO 8601, and userId defaults to API key owner, but these are already in the schema. The example provides clarity.

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 'Log' (or Create) and the resource 'time entry for a project'. It specifies required fields (projectId, hours, date) and differentiates from sibling tools like list_time_entries, get_time_entry, etc.

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 clear context: requires projectId, hours, date, and optional billable for invoicing. It gives an example but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like update_time_entry for modifications.

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