create_time_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool creates a new record and outlines required fields. However, it does not mention any destructive behavior, authentication needs, or potential side effects (e.g., duplicate handling). The information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints. No extraneous information. Every word is meaningful.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters including a nested object, no output schema. The description covers core logic (required fields and time/hours constraint). It does not explain the external_reference object or notes, but the schema covers those. For a creation tool, it is contextually complete.

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?

Input schema already provides detailed descriptions for 7 out of 8 parameters (88% coverage). The description adds the critical OR constraint between hours and started_time/ended_time, which is not captured in the schema. This provides additional guidance 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 (Create) and resource (a time entry), specifying required fields (project_id, task_id, spent_date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_timer or update_time_entry.

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?

Explicitly states the OR constraint for hours versus started_time/ended_time, providing a key decision rule. It implies that if you have hours you don't need time ranges, and vice versa. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool suggestions, but the constraint is clear enough.

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