update_time_registration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of describing behavior. It only says 'Update', which implies mutation, but gives no information about permissions, reversibility, whether the update is partial or full, or what the response looks like. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core operation and key fields. There is no unnecessary information or redundant wording, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is an update tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to compensate. It does not state whether the update is partial or full, what the return value is, or any prerequisites (e.g., which identifiers are required for lookup). The description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent for a correct call, especially given the 7 parameters.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description lists some updatable fields (hours, comment, date, billable) but omits JiraId and the identifier fields (TimeRegistrationID, TaskID). It doesn't clarify which fields are actually updatable vs. identifiers, adding only marginal value beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'time registration', and lists the specific fields affected (hours, comment, date, billable status). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_time_registration and delete_time_registration.

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 the operation applies to an 'existing' time registration, which implies it is not for creating new ones. This gives clear context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly name the alternative (create_time_registration) or state when not to use it. The context is clear but without explicit exclusions.

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