Edit Time Entry

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

The 'destructiveHint: false' annotation indicates the operation is non-destructive, and the description is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether it is a partial update or if validation occurs. Lack of contradiction between description and 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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. It is appropriately sized for a simple mutation tool, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify whether the tool performs a partial update (patch) or requires all fields, nor does it mention return behavior. This lack of completeness could lead to misunderstandings for the agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description of parameters is already in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, achieving a baseline score of 3.

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 'Edit an existing time entry' clearly states the verb (edit) and resource (time entry). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_time_entry' (create new) and 'delete_time_entry' (delete). However, it could be more precise about what fields are editable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_time_entry' or 'delete_time_entry'. The description does not explain prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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