swsd_log_time

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, so the write nature is partly redundant, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields: it honors SWSD_WRITE_MODE and does not retry on transient failure. That retry/write-mode disclosure is valuable for an agent deciding how to handle failures. It stops short of stating what gets returned or created.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action, required inputs, and write/retry semantics all front-loaded. No waste or redundancy.

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 write tool with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, target object types, required params, and write-mode/retry behavior. It does not indicate what the call returns (e.g. a created time-track id), but that is a minor gap given the otherwise complete disclosure.

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 100%, and all four parameters are documented in the schema, so the description's listing of required fields adds little. The schema itself clarifies that minutes_parsed is the SWSD field name and that id is the parent record id, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Log time against a SWSD incident, problem, change, or release") and scopes the exact object types targeted. The verb "log" is clearly distinct from sibling read/update operations like swsd_list_time_tracks and swsd_update_time_track, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use it (to log/append time entries against one of four parent object types) and enumerates every required parameter. However, it never contrasts this tool with the alternatives (e.g. swsd_update_time_track for modifying an existing entry), leaving that routing to inference.

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