update_time_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and discloses only that PUT is used and that `start` is required. It does not say whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and only one extra clarifying fact. Efficient, though the second sentence is largely redundant with the schema's own note on `start`.

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 10-parameter mutation with 10% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how partial updates behave or what most parameters do.

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 coverage is only 10% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate but largely doesn't. It explains `start`'s requirement (which the schema already notes) while leaving end, type, tag_ids, task_id, billable, project_id, and description unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates a time entry') and even names the exact endpoint, which clearly separates it from create_time_entry and stop_running_time_entry by operation type. It doesn't explicitly call out the sibling alternatives, but the update semantics are 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement of when to prefer this over create_time_entry or stop_running_time_entry. The endpoint string is the only contextual hint.

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