Update time entry

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: false, etc.), the description discloses critical behaviors: partial update semantics ('only the parameters you pass are written'), lock_version handling and conflict errors rather than silent overwrites, and refusal to edit within closed cost-reporting periods. This adds substantial transparency beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by usage, behavior, and cross-references in a logical order. Every sentence adds useful information; no filler or redundancy. Despite being long, it earns its space.

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?

With an output schema present, the description still usefully cross-references log_time's return shape. It covers edge cases (concurrency, validation errors, uneditable fields) and provides all necessary operational context. No significant gaps remain.

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 already has 100% coverage, but the description enriches it further: it clarifies the 'comment' empty-string behavior, explains 'activity' name resolution against the entry's own form, and clarifies that time_entry_id is not a work package id. This is additive value 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 opens with 'Correct an existing time entry', a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like log_time (create) and delete_time_entry. It further clarifies the scope by listing everyday fixes (wrong duration, day, activity, comment), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('everyday fixes'), clearly states what is not editable (work package and project) with an alternative action ('delete the entry and log it again'), and provides cross-references to list_time_entries, delete_time_entry, and get_project_metadata. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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