Record time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a write operation requiring a two-phase preview/confirm handshake and that user defaults to the signed-in user, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about permissions, whether the entry is later editable, failure behavior, or what the preview returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the field list, then the write-mode caveat. Two sentences with little waste, though the parenthetical field enumeration partially duplicates the schema.

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 and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: two parameters are undocumented in both schema and prose, and the preview/confirm guidance is ambiguous relative to the schema's confirm description. Nothing an agent needs is grossly missing, but a few more specifics would make it safe to call blind.

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 55% across 11 parameters, so the description has to compensate. It does add meaning for hours (decimal example 0.5), price (rate per hour), user_id default, and the billable/non-billable flag, but omits reference and only gestures at matter_id ('on a matter'). Useful additions, but the compensation is partial.

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+resource ('Records a time entry (TimeEntry) on a matter') and enumerates the core fields, so an agent can distinguish it from clio_time_entries_list, clio_time_summary and clio_timer without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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 a workflow hint for the preview/confirm cycle, but no guidance on when to use this tool versus clio_timer (running timers) or clio_expense_create. The stated flow ('preview first, then confirm') is also in tension with the schema's own advice to pass confirm=true directly when the request is complete, which could push the agent into an unnecessary extra round-trip.

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