Time Create Time Entry

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: this endpoint is undocumented and may be changed or removed without notice, a real operational risk. It stops short of describing side effects such as timesheet totals or approval 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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by the risk caveat and alternative routes; no filler. It could be tightened slightly by folding the route warning into one clause, but nothing wasted.

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?

Return values needn't be explained since an output schema exists, and the route-risk caveat is valuable. However, for a mutation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage and a billable-by-default flag, omitting parameter meaning leaves an agent guessing on the actual write payload.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the semantics. It only supplies a date format hint; user_id, project_id, hours, notes, phase_id, is_billable (defaults true) and custom_field_values are left entirely undefined, including whether IDs accept names or the shape of custom_field_values.

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 ("Create a new time entry for a user on a project") plus one format constraint. It explicitly names the two sibling routes (time_create_user_time_entry, time_create_project_time_entry), so an agent can distinguish this tool from its closest alternatives without opening schemas.

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?

It names the two documented alternatives and flags this route as undocumented, which implies a preference ordering, but never states when this tool is the right choice (e.g. when you need to pass both user_id and project_id explicitly rather than deriving them from a path). The reader must infer the selection rule.

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