Preview a worklog (no write)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does it well: it declares the tool is non-mutating, enumerates what the response contains (validation results, duplicates, approvalToken), and states that the token is required by the write tools. It omits operational details such as whether approval tokens expire or whether previews are persisted.

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 non-writing constraint and user-review workflow are front-loaded, followed by the two operation shapes and the return contract. Four dense sentences, none of which is filler or restates the title.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral contract: it is a read-only preview, what it returns, and how the returned token gates subsequent writes. The critical agent failure mode — skipping the preview and writing directly — is explicitly guarded against.

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 would be 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it names which fields belong to the create proposal versus the update changes object, and explains the approvalToken's role in the downstream workflow. The optional-field markers (startTime?, description?, etc.) mirror the schema rather than adding new constraints.

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 ('Prepare a proposed worklog for user review WITHOUT writing to Tempo'), and the emphasis on 'WITHOUT writing' distinguishes it cleanly from tempo_create_worklog and tempo_update_worklog. An agent can tell what this does and what it does not do 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?

Gives clear sequencing guidance: preview first, show the full result to the user, wait for explicit approval, then call a write tool. It also branches usage by operation=create vs operation=update. It stops short of explicitly positioning itself against tempo_validate_worklog and tempo_check_duplicate, which overlap in returning validation/duplicate results.

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