update_timesheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the success return format, explains dry_run behavior explicitly as returning vals without writing, and reveals that changing task_id moves the entry while keeping its project consistent. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not address failure scenarios or validation errors.

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?

Two pragmatic sentences: the first states the operation and success response, the second packs the key constraints into a dense but readable block. No filler or repeated schema information.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation paths and both response modes. It could be more complete by noting expected error behavior for invalid/missing update fields or ownership/access expectations, but it supplies enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in normal cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add parameter meaning, and it does: it notes hours must be > 0, date must be YYYY-MM-DD, at least one of the four update fields is required, and dry_run skips writing. It also explains task_id's move semantics, which the schema's bare property completely omits. Only entry_id is left ambiguous, but its purpose is clear from the tool name and required status.

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 opens with 'Modify an existing timesheet entry', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_timesheet and list_timesheets. It also states the success return payload, removing ambiguity about the operation's outcome.

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 communicates clear usage context by specifying that at least one update field must be provided, and the term 'existing entry' implies this is not for creation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as create_timesheet for new entries or update_task when task-level fields should be changed, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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