rm_update_time_entry

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose partial-update semantics, how null values are handled, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or any permission/validation behavior. Annotations already convey non-read-only and non-destructive, so no extra value is added.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves out useful information that is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

For a mutation tool with five parameters and potential ambiguity around optional field updates and null values, this one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether omitted parameters leave fields unchanged or whether null clears them, nor does it address when updating is appropriate.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters such as entry_id, date, hours, notes, or is_billable. The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the raw schema titles and types.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Update', and a clear resource, 'time entry'. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from rm_create_time_entry, and the resource distinguishes it from update tools for other entities.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools like rm_create_time_entry or rm_delete_time_entry. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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