update_timesheet

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context by clarifying that only supplied fields are updated and that the entry must be for a verified allowed project, which goes beyond the structured annotation data.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, 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?

Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and the presence of sibling tools, the description is minimally viable but lacking. It does not provide enough parameter semantics or usage alternatives, though the annotations and output schema cover safety and return shape.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters. 'Update supplied fields' is generic and does not clarify the role of line_id, the meaning of nullable fields, or whether null clears a value. The schema property names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('timesheet entry'), with 'supplied fields' indicating a partial update. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_timesheet, delete_timesheet, and list_timesheets.

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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing timesheet entry, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus create_timesheet or delete_timesheet. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than direct.

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