log_time

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

The description discloses a key validation rule (inicio must be before fin) and indicates a write operation via 'Registra'. With no annotations, it partially covers behavioral essentials but omits details like auth requirements, side effects, or return behavior.

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?

Two short sentences convey the core purpose and a key constraint, with no redundancy. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., task_id must reference an existing task), return value, error behavior, or how it integrates with the timesheet workflow, leaving significant gaps.

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 description adds a relational constraint between inicio and fin not present in individual property descriptions. Given schema coverage is 60%, it compensates somewhat but does not fully explain the remaining parameters (e.g., task_id is a reference, descripcion's purpose).

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 a specific action ('Registra tiempo manual') with explicit start and end times, distinguishing it from sibling tools for automatic timer start/stop. The verb and resource are concrete.

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 use case is implied via 'manual' and 'explicit', suggesting it is for logging time without the automatic timer. However, no explicit guidance or alternatives are given, such as when to use start_task or stop_timesheet instead.

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