swsd_update_time_track

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it flags this as a WRITE, notes that it honors SWSD_WRITE_MODE, and warns it does not retry on transient failure — material operational context an agent needs. No mention of auth/permission needs or reversibility.

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: the mutation/scope statement is front-loaded, followed by the payload requirement and the write-mode caveat. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 non-idempotent, destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the mutation nature, the required update fields, write-mode handling, and retry behavior. It omits permission/auth requirements and any note on partial failure, but is largely sufficient given the annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the non-obvious constraint that name and/or minutes_parsed must be passed (the schema's required list only covers object_type, id, time_track_id), clarifying the real minimum payload.

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 ('Update an existing SWSD time entry') and names the four parent object types it applies to, which cleanly separates it from sibling writers like swsd_log_time and readers like swsd_list_time_tracks. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Pass name and/or minutes_parsed' tells the agent what to supply for a meaningful update, which is genuinely useful invocation guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no pointer to swsd_log_time for creating new entries, so usage is only implied.

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