focus_create_time_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details: the conditional behavior around task_id and the default of type to 'activity'. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., does it affect a running timer?), required permissions, or return behavior. Some transparency is present, but significant gaps remain, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core action, and the second explains key parameter behaviors. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to cover more ground. It explains the main purpose and two parameter behaviors but omits details about return values, parameter interactions, prerequisites, or edge cases. For a tool with this complexity, the description is too sparse to be considered complete.

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 only 36%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for task_id (creates under that task or taskless) and type (defaults to 'activity'), which are helpful. However, many parameters (tag_ids, billable, project_id, description, time_block_id) remain unexplained in both schema and description. The compensation is insufficient for the low coverage, hence a 2.

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 tool's specific action: 'create a completed time entry immediately.' The verb 'create' and resource 'completed time entry' are specific, and the phrase 'immediately' distinguishes it from timer-starting or updating operations. The added detail about task_id and taskless entries further clarifies its niche among siblings.

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 for when to use this tool: when you need to log a completed time entry rather than start a running timer. It implies this is for retroactive logging, which differentiates it from focus_start_timer and focus_update_time_entry. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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