swsd_log_time

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

The description explicitly labels the operation as a WRITE, states that it honors SWSD_WRITE_MODE, and notes that transient failures are not retried. These details go beyond the annotations and give the agent actionable expectations about side effects and failure behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose, and the second conveys safety and retry behavior. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 simple write tool with all parameters required and fully described in the schema, the description supplies the remaining operational context: it is a write, respects environment mode, and does not retry transient failures. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain return values here because the core invocation details are covered.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the useful note that minutes_parsed is the exact SWSD field name, and it restates which fields are required, but it does not add significant meaning 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 clearly states the action ('Log time against') and the specific resources (incident, problem, change, release), making it distinct from sibling tools like swsd_list_time_tracks and swsd_update_time_track. The required fields are also listed, reinforcing what invocation entails.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swsd_list_time_tracks or swsd_update_time_track. It does not state prerequisites, follow-up steps, or which sibling to choose for modifying time entries.

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