clickup_time_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the partial update semantics (only supplied fields change), the return format ('Returns the updated time entry object'), and the tag management alternative. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers the core mutation behavior well.

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 tightly focused sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the partial update behavior and tag management alternative, and the third specifies the return value. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: it explains the partial update behavior, directs to alternatives for tag changes, and specifies the return type. It could mention authentication or error handling, but covers the essential context given the 100% schema coverage and clear sibling relationships.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 specific action ('Modify a recorded time tracking entry') and resource ('time tracking entry'), distinguishing it from siblings like clickup_time_create (create new entry) and clickup_time_delete (remove entry). It precisely defines the scope as updating existing entries rather than creating new ones.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: 'Use clickup_time_add_tags / remove_tags for tag changes.' It also clarifies the partial update behavior ('Only the supplied fields are changed; omitted fields keep their current value'), which helps distinguish it from tools that might replace entire objects.

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