cor_log_hours

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Log hours against a task' but does not reveal important traits such as whether this is a destructive operation, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response indicates. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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 concise, consisting of a single line followed by bullet-like args. It is front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides value, though the args section could be more structured.

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 the tool's complexity (2 required params, nested object, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does but lacks details on return values or side effects. Since an output schema exists, the burden is slightly reduced, but more context would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the 'data' parameter as 'time entry data (hours, date, notes, etc.)'. However, the schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate more. The explanation is vague and does not specify required fields within the data object.

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 'Log' and the resource 'hours against a task', making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cor_get_hours_by_date or cor_search_time_entries, which could also involve hours. The title is null, so no additional clarity from that.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify that this is for creating a time entry, as opposed to reading hours. No context about prerequisites or when not to use it is given.

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