clockodo_create_entry

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

Annotations provide only basic flags, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does so well by disclosing required fields, the two mutually exclusive time formats, optional text use, and the admin-only constraint on users_id. It doesn't describe response behavior, but for a create operation the core side effect and constraints are clear.

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 compact and information-dense. Every sentence earns its place: the main action, required parameters, time alternatives, and optional fields with their constraints. No filler or repetition exists.

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?

For a 9-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call-building information: required IDs, billable flag, the two valid time combinations, and optional parameters. It is complete enough for a correct first call, though it doesn't describe the response format or error conditions.

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 only 56%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: which parameters are required, that time_since is always required with either time_until or duration, that duration is in minutes, that users_id is admin-only, and that text should be sourced from clockodo_list_entry_texts. This goes well beyond bare schema fields.

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 'Creates a time entry', which names a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like update, delete, get, and list operations.

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 clearly frames when this tool is appropriate: to create a time entry, with required parameters and time-option alternatives. It also explicitly points to clockodo_list_entry_texts as the recommended source for text naming, providing useful cross-tool guidance, though it does not explicitly describe when not to use it.

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