update_employee_time

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The note that `data` is sent verbatim as the request body is genuinely useful behavioral context (no field filtering or validation layer), but nothing is said about partial vs. full replacement semantics, permission/auth requirements, whether omitted fields are nulled, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences with the mutation marker front-loaded and no filler. The external documentation pointer is the only debatable inclusion, and it is arguably load-bearing given the free-form body.

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?

This is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, and its key payload parameter is an untyped nested object with no defined properties — so the actual updatable fields live only behind an external URL. For a write tool where the body is everything, delegating the field list to a web page leaves a real gap.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description's "sent verbatim as the request body" restates the schema's own wording rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("updates a time-tracking record") and the "WRITE:" prefix makes the mutation nature unmistakable against read siblings like get_employee_time and list_employee_times. It doesn't explicitly name the create/delete siblings it differs from, but the resource naming is precise enough to disambiguate.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus create_employee_time or update_employee_contract, and no prerequisites. Only the implicit signal is the "WRITE:" label; the agent is left to infer that this requires an existing timeId.

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