Update time entry / expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuine behavioral facts: the entry must be unbilled, and the write is gated behind a preview/confirm flow. It still omits permission/auth requirements, reversibility, and what happens to fields left unspecified.

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 tight sentences with the precondition and field list front-loaded, and the write-safety workflow second. No filler; the only cost is that the compression leaves parameters like matter_id and quantity out entirely.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 36% schema coverage, the description covers the essential confirm/preview contract and the billed constraint but leaves too many parameters and side effects unaddressed to be called complete.

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 36%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by naming date, hours, note, rate, activity description, and billable/non-billable. However, it never explains matter_id (move to another matter) or quantity (expenses), leaving meaningful parameters undocumented in both places.

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 an existing entry') and enumerates the mutable fields, plus a key precondition ('as long as it has not been billed'). It is clearly distinguishable from creation siblings like clio_time_entry_create, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete invocation workflow ('preview first, then confirm with the token from the preview'), which is real guidance on how to call it. It does not say when to update versus create a new entry, nor name the sibling tools, so usage selection is only implied.

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