Log time on a ticket

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation aspect. The description adds the valuable behavioral trait that the entry is internal and invisible to the customer. It does not elaborate on other side effects, authorization needs, or return details, but given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple logging tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the key context (internal bookkeeping, customer invisible) and annotations cover safety. However, it lacks mention of return behavior, prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist), and permissions. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer.

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 low (40%), and the tool description does not compensate by explaining parameter meanings. The description provides no additional information about ticket_id, time_spent, note, agent_id, or billable. While names are self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the 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 the action ('Record a time entry') and the resource ('a ticket'). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like adding notes or updating tickets, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Internal bookkeeping: the customer never sees it.' This implies it is for internal time tracking and not for customer-facing communication. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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