teamleader_update_time_tracking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the entry is updated and lists fields; it does not explain partial-update semantics, the need to pair subject_id with subject_type, how duration_minutes and duration_seconds interact, or whether updates are reversible or require special permissions.

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 wasted words. The action and the list of updatable fields are front-loaded, 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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too minimal to fully guide correct invocation. It leaves important behavioral details, such as patch semantics and the subject_id/subject_type pairing requirement, entirely implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description briefly recaps the main fields but adds no new meaning about parameter relationships, constraints, or conditional requirements, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('update') and the resource ('existing time-tracking entry'), and enumerates the updatable fields. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_time_tracking or list_time_tracking, but the resource and action are specific enough to avoid confusion.

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?

No usage guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The 'existing' phrasing implies the entry must already exist, but there is no mention of when to use add_time_tracking for new entries or delete_time_tracking for removal.

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