Log time

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the entry is 'completed' (as opposed to running), and instructs to add a note, which is a behavioral expectation not captured by annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

It covers the workflow (list tools first), all required fields, and the optional note. With annotations covering the safety profile and schema covering most formats, the description is sufficiently complete for this simple tool.

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?

The schema documents hours, notes, and spent_date, but leaves project_id and task_id undocumented. The description fills this gap by mentioning 'project, task' and instructing to get IDs, clarifying they are ID references. It also provides an example for hours format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('completed time entry'), distinguishing it from siblings like start_timer by emphasizing 'completed'. It lists the key fields (project, task, date, duration), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to call list_projects and list_project_tasks first to obtain IDs, which is a clear prerequisite for correct usage. It doesn't explicitly exclude start_timer or update_time_entry, but the 'completed' qualifier provides enough context to differentiate.

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