set_time_worked_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Set' and 'Returns: Confirmation message,' but it does not state that the operation replaces previously logged time, whether minutes must be positive, or what happens to existing time entries. This is a thin behavioral profile for a mutating tool.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema types.

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 is simple, with two required integer parameters, and the return is summarized as a confirmation message, so the basics are covered. However, it does not distinguish itself from the nearly identical add_time_worked_tool, and the lack of any overwrite or constraint detail leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to use it.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by defining both parameters: ticket_id as 'The ticket ID number' and minutes as 'Total time worked in minutes.' It adds the unit and the 'total' semantic that the schema lacks, though ticket_id's explanation is close to tautological.

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 specific verb 'Set' and a clear resource, 'the total time worked on a ticket,' which makes the core purpose understandable. The word 'total' hints at the distinction from the sibling add_time_worked_tool, though it does not explicitly say 'replace' or 'overwrite.'

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over add_time_worked_tool or update_ticket_tool. The word 'total' implies an overwrite scenario, but the description never names alternatives or states the condition that selects this tool, leaving the decision to inference.

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