update_hours

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Update hours entry' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what validation occurs, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the description itself doesn't contain any redundant or unnecessary elements.

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 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description 'Update hours entry' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what can be updated, how to structure updates, what permissions are needed, what happens on success/failure, or how this differs from related hours operations. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its 2 parameters (hours_id and data), and the tool description provides no information about either parameter. The description doesn't explain what 'hours_id' refers to, what format it should be in, or what fields can be included in the 'data' object. With no parameter information in either schema or description, this falls well below the baseline expectation.

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 'Update hours entry' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_hours' with minimal variation. While it indicates the verb 'update' and resource 'hours entry', it lacks specificity about what aspects of hours entries can be updated or the scope of the operation. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_hours' and 'delete_hours', it doesn't clearly differentiate beyond the basic action verb.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for managing hours (create_hours, delete_hours, get_hours, get_hours_entry), but the description doesn't indicate when update_hours is appropriate versus creating new entries or using read operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to other tools are mentioned.

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