Time Update Time Entry

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

With annotations already declaring mutability, non-idempotency, and openness, the description usefully adds that one route is undocumented and may change without notice. However, it does not explain partial-update behavior, required permissions, or what happens to omitted fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by concise route-risk disclosure. There is little waste, though the documented-route sentence is confusing because it references user_id, which is not in the input schema.

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 undocumented parameters, the description omits field semantics and update behavior. The mention of a documented route requiring user_id, which is absent from the schema, creates a practical gap for correct invocation.

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 five parameters, and the description provides no meaning for date, hours, notes, is_billable, or entry_id beyond route context. It therefore fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing time entry.' It distinguishes this from create/delete siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from time_update_time_approval_status or explain which fields are updatable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as time_update_time_approval_status, time_lock_timesheet, or other time-entry tools. The route warning is useful context but does not tell the agent when this tool is appropriate.

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