update_time_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('修正する') but says nothing about required permissions, partial-update semantics, or reversibility, leaving the agent without the context needed for a write operation.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But it is under-specified rather than concise, packing no actionable detail into its brevity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 5-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves the agent without parameter meaning, update semantics, or usage context.

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?

Five parameters exist at 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them (hours, comments, spent_on, activity_id, time_entry_id). It provides no compensating semantics, which is worse than the calibration baseline for fully undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (修正する / modify) and resource (作業時間の記録 / time entry record), so the action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling mutation tools create_time_entry and delete_time_entry, which the rubric places at a 4.

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 on when to use this tool versus create_time_entry, delete_time_entry, or list_time_entries, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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