Yougile Log Time

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

The description adds the behavioral trait 'keeping the plan', which clarifies that the plan is not modified. However, it does not mention the confirmation requirement for client-facing projects (even though the confirm parameter is described in the schema) or any other side effects. With only destructiveHint=false as annotation, the description carries some but not full responsibility; it adds one useful nuance but lacks depth.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word 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?

The description is minimal but covers the core action. However, it omits the confirmation workflow (critical for writes to client-facing projects) and does not hint at return behavior or error conditions. For a mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, this leaves the agent without guidance on important operational aspects.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'worked hours' and 'keeping the plan', which loosely relates to the hours and plan_hours parameters, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The confirm parameter is not mentioned in the description at all.

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 verb ('Add'), the resource ('a task's time tracking'), and the specific nuance ('keeping the plan'), which distinguishes it from any sibling tool. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and that it is a mutation for logging time.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling tool handles time logging, the use case is implicitly unique, but the lack of explicit guidance (e.g., 'use this when you need to record worked hours') leaves some room for ambiguity.

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