Time Create Project Time Entry

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write with openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds useful constraints (date format, 256-char limits, assignable_id/URL coupling) but says nothing about permissions, duplicate submission behavior, or side effects like timesheet status changes.

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?

Front-loads the verb, resource, and route, then packs constraints into two dense sentences with almost no waste. Slightly cramped but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the tricky creation constraints and the sibling routing decision. Gaps remain around user_id/hours semantics and permission or idempotency expectations for a mutating 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does for several fields: date is YYYY-MM-DD, assignable_id is the project_id and must match the URL, task/notes are optional and capped at 256 characters, bill_rate_id is optional. It leaves user_id and hours undescribed, so it isn't 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 (Create), resource (time entry), and scope (on a project), plus cites the exact documented route POST /projects/{project_id}/time_entries. It explicitly discriminates from the close sibling time_create_user_time_entry by naming the phase/leave-type case as that tool's domain.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use time_create_user_time_entry to log time to a phase or leave type. Also flags the constraint that assignable_id must match the project_id in the URL, which steers correct invocation.

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