focus_update_time_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals that changes apply immediately. It omits other important behaviors such as required permissions, side effects, error handling, or reversibility, leaving significant gaps.

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 sentence that conveys the method (PATCH) and immediate effect without waste. It is concise and front-loaded, though arguably too minimal to cover critical details, the structure itself is efficient.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not mention required parameters, return values, error cases, or any caveats, making it inadequate for an AI agent to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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 27% (3 of 11 properties), and the description itself does not explain any parameters. It fails to note that time_entry_id is required or which common fields can be updated, providing zero value beyond the schema.

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 'partially update a time entry (PATCH)' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other update tools like focus_update_project and focus_update_task. The PATCH method further clarifies its scoped behavior.

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 implies usage for modifying a subset of time entry fields via 'partially update' and mentions 'changes apply immediately', but it does not explicitly specify when to prefer this over other tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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