Create time entry

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals non-obvious behaviors: time rounding is disabled, entry_method selects manual vs automated config blocks, overlap handling requires a retry, and config_root depends on MCP scoping. It doesn't cover all possible side effects (e.g., auth, idempotency), but covers the main behavioral edge cases.

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 five sentences are all high-signal: core behavior, time rounding behavior, parameter semantics, overlap retry logic, and a scoping caveat. No filler or repetition; the structure front-loads the primary action and flows to situational rules.

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 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description could never cover everything, but it does cover the non-obvious, high-risk aspects (overlap, config_root, rounding). It does not explain return format or error cases, which remain a gap, yet overall it is strong for a create-style tool.

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 79%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how entry_method interacts with description/overlap rules, what confirm_overlap is for, and when config_root matters. This goes beyond the baseline expected at high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Creates a completed time entry with explicit start and end.' It differentiates from 'start_timer' by emphasizing 'completed' and explicit time bounds, but does not name sibling tools or frame the distinction explicitly, so it lands between full differentiation and merely clear purpose.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to retry with confirm_overlap ('When overlap.on_conflict is prompt, retry with confirm_overlap: true') and when config_root is needed. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, but the context of creating a completed entry implies a usage scenario.

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