createTimeEntry

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond the annotations by explaining the consequence — 'retries can duplicate time' — which an agent needs in order to decide whether to retry, and it scopes the record to the API-key user.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The purpose and the issue/project constraint lead, and the non-idempotency warning plus activity routing follow immediately.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the two highest-risk ambiguities: entry ownership/scoping and retry behavior. It stops short of describing hours constraints or customFieldsJson requirements, which remain thin at 43% coverage.

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?

At 43% schema coverage the description has to compensate, and it does on the most ambiguous point: issueId and projectId are mutually exclusive ('exactly one issue or project'), a constraint absent from the schema. The activityId routing hint is partly redundant with the schema, and hours/customFieldsJson semantics are left to 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 states a specific verb ('Record logged hours') and resource ('time entry') and pins down the scoping rule: 'against exactly one issue or project.' This is enough to separate it from the sibling list tools like listTimeEntries and getMyTimeEntries without opening any schema.

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?

It routes the agent explicitly: 'use listTimeEntryActivities when an activity ID is needed,' which is directly actionable. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., bulk vs single entry), so it falls short of a full 5.

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