Register Time (Intempus)

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the pre-write validation rules (contract on the date, work type belonging to the work model, case being open) and the idempotencyKey mechanism to make retries safe. It does not say what happens when validation fails or what the response contains.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with zero filler; the primary action and scope come first, followed by input shape, validation behavior, and the retry tip. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the action, required inputs, precondition checks, and idempotency behavior for an 11-parameter mutation tool. The chief remaining gap is the result/failure shape and how to recover after a validation rejection, which the description does not address.

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?

With only 45% schema coverage and 11 parameters, the description does useful compensating work: it names work type, optional case, date, startTime+endTime with optional breakHours, and hours, and clarifies the either/or rule that the schema leaves implicit. It omits meaning for remarks, additionalRemarks, and endDate (multi-day spans), so it is not fully complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Register time for yourself") that clearly identifies the write/create operation among list/get/update/delete siblings, and even scopes it to the caller. However it never names or contrasts an adjacent sibling (e.g. update_my_work_report) explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 explains the required input combination (work type, optional case, date plus either start/end or hours) which is useful how-to guidance, but it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing or alternative tool routing. Usage is implied by the operation itself rather than articulated.

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