wakatime_mark_consumed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key consequence of preventing double-counting, but it doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible, idempotent, or has other side effects. The description focuses on the intended effect rather than a full behavioral profile.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first states the action and timing, the second explains the benefit. Every word earns its place.

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 only 3 parameters and no output schema. The description gives the purpose, timing, and main behavioral effect, which is sufficient to understand when and why to use it. It doesn't explain return values, but that's not critical for this type of marking operation.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (commit_hash, file_paths, branch), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description adds no param-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline for 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 the action ('Mark time ranges as consumed') and the specific context ('after a commit'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly mentioning it prevents double-counting in subsequent session_duration calls, which is a sibling tool.

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 specifies when to use it ('after a commit') and explains the consequence ('Prevents double-counting in subsequent session_duration calls'), which implies its relationship with session_duration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond session_duration.

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