productive-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that hours are 'converted to minutes internally' and that service_hint, once chosen, is 'remembered as the project default' - useful behavioral details. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate entries, which are important for a write operation.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value - the first establishes context, and each parameter explanation provides essential usage guidance without redundancy. The formatting with bullet-like parameter explanations is efficient.

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 this is a write operation with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides strong parameter semantics and clear purpose. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication needs or error handling, but the parameter explanations are thorough and the purpose is crystal clear.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in detail. It clarifies that 'project' accepts fuzzy matching or numeric IDs, 'hours' is a float converted to minutes, 'note' is optional, 'date' defaults to today and uses ISO format, and 'service_hint' sets a project default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Create a time entry') on a specific resource ('on a Productive.io project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like productive_list_time_entries (read) and productive_delete_time_entry (delete). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool (to log time on a project) and implicitly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like productive_list_time_entries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like productive_update_time_entry for modifying existing entries.

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