swsd_update_time_track

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

Annotations already flag the tool as non-read-only and destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'WRITE' while adding genuinely new operational details: it 'honors SWSD_WRITE_MODE and does not retry on transient failure.' This mode-sensitivity and retry policy are exactly the behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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 sentences totaling roughly 28 words, with the purpose front-loaded and parameter/behavior notes packed into a tight second sentence. Every clause earns its place and nothing repeats schema content.

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, target object scope, payload parameters, and two non-obvious runtime behaviors (WRITE_MODE sensitivity and no retry on transient failure), which is substantial for this complexity level. It does not describe the return value or error behavior when the time entry does not exist, a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 all five parameters already have descriptions, earning the baseline 3. 'Pass name and/or minutes_parsed' adds a small semantic hint that these two are the update payload while the others are locators, but the schema's own field descriptions already convey that distinction.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing SWSD time entry on an incident, problem, change, or release'), immediately distinguishing it from creation (swsd_log_time) and listing (swsd_list_time_tracks) siblings. The object-type scope is explicit, so an agent knows exactly what this tool targets.

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 phrase 'Update an existing... time entry' clearly implies this tool is for modifying existing entries rather than creating new ones, and 'Pass name and/or minutes_parsed' gives direct invocation guidance. No sibling is named explicitly and there are no when-not-to-use exclusions, so guidance is clear but relies on inference.

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