manage_change_time_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds useful context such as which parameters are required per action (time_entry_id for view/update/delete) and value formats (hh:mm, ISO datetime). However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error handling, and the action semantics are only inferred from the action names.

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 uses a structured Args list that is compact and front-loaded with purpose. It packs parameter semantics without unnecessary prose, although it is more detailed than a one-line summary. Every line adds value.

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?

With 7 parameters, 5 actions, and zero schema descriptions, the description covers all parameter purposes and per-action requirements. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the tool's CRUD nature is adequately captured. Minor gaps remain around list pagination and error handling.

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 0% and the description compensates thoroughly by explaining each parameter's role, when it is required (e.g., te_agent_id for create), and expected formats (time_spent as 'hh:mm', executed_at as ISO datetime). This goes well beyond the raw schema.

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 'Manage time entries on a change' and enumerates supported CRUD actions (create/view/list/update/delete), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like manage_change_task or manage_problem_time_entry.

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 usage for managing time entries on a change but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternative time entry tools for problems or releases. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving guidance at an implied level.

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