swsd_update_time_track

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and open world. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool honors SWSD_WRITE_MODE and does not retry on transient failures, which is critical behavior not captured in annotations. No contradiction.

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 tightly written sentences. First sentence states purpose and scope; second adds behavioral notes. No redundant words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers purpose, input, and behavioral nuance (write mode, no retry). No output schema is provided, but the tool's return behavior is not critical for selection. It could specify success response, but completeness is adequate for a write tool with good schema coverage.

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 baseline 3. The description mentions 'Pass name and/or minutes_parsed' but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema descriptions. It does not compensate with additional parameter context, so score remains at 3.

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 verb (update), resource (existing SWSD time entry), and scope (on incident, problem, change, or release). It distinguishes from siblings like swsd_log_time (create) and swsd_list_time_tracks (list). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 this is for updating existing time entries, contrasting with a creation tool. It mentions behavioral traits (WRITE mode, no retry) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. Still, context is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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