Create time entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that rounding from .clockify.yml is applied when enabled and that description supports template fields—both are non-obvious behaviors not visible in the schema. However, it stops short of explaining the exact rounding mechanics or template syntax, which would warrant a 5.

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 three short, purposeful sentences: it states the action, the rounding behavior, and template support. Every sentence adds distinct information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively minimal. It introduces rounding and template fields but does not explain their implications or return values. The high schema coverage mitigates some gaps, but the description could still be more complete for operational clarity.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by hinting that issue_title, github_label, and issue_number (the three parameters lacking schema descriptions) serve as template fields within the description. It also connects the 'rounding' behavior to the apply_rounding parameter, enriching parameter understanding.

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 the tool creates a completed time entry with explicit start and end times, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_timer and stop_timer. The mention of ISO-8601 format and config-based rounding adds specificity to the 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 phrase 'completed time entry' strongly implies this tool is for logging past time intervals rather than starting a running timer. While no alternative tools are explicitly named, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage without confusion.

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