updateTimeEntry

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint: false, which is consistent with the 'update' verb, so no contradiction. However, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond the name: it does not state whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether hours is mandatory, what happens to unmentioned fields, or any authorization requirements. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description carries the full burden and fails to deliver.

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 description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It has no front-loaded key information, no structure, and every possible sentence is absent. It does not earn its place because it adds no value over the name.

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 tool with a complex nested schema (time_entry object, custom_fields, custom_field_values), no output schema, and no annotation beyond readOnlyHint false. The description provides none of the contextual detail needed to call it safely: no clarification of required fields, no mention of response format, no indication of side effects. Completely inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter semantics, but it mentions nothing about pathParams (format, timeEntryId) or the bodyParams time_entry object with its multiple optional fields. The agent is left to interpret the schema without any guidance on how to construct a valid update request or what values like activity_id or custom_fields mean.

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 'Update time entry' is a tautology — it merely restates the tool name without any specification of what fields can be changed, what resource is affected, or how it differs from createTimeEntry or deleteTimeEntry. With 80+ sibling tools, including several time-entry operations, this provides no discriminating information.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createTimeEntry or deleteTimeEntry. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent has no clues about whether to call update versus create based on existing state.

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