update_time_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only provided fields change (patch semantics) and that the updated entry is returned. However, it omits details on side effects (e.g., effect on running timers), authorization needs, or error scenarios. The added value is moderate beyond the schema.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: identifies what it does, specifies patch behavior, and mentions the return value. No unnecessary words.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic context but is insufficient for a complex mutation. Missing are details on response structure, validations, and dependencies (e.g., changing task_id might require the task to belong to the same workspace). The description says 'Returns the updated entry' but does not specify the structure, relying on the agent's expectation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enumerates the changeable fields but adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. No format constraints or behavioral nuances are provided.

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 tool updates an existing time entry and lists the fields that can be changed (description, start, duration, billable flag, tags, linked task). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_time_entry (creates new) and start_time_entry (starts a timer).

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 implicitly indicates this is for modifying existing entries ('Update an existing time entry') and specifies a patch behavior ('Only the provided fields change'). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide criteria for when not to use it, such as if a time entry is currently running.

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