add_my_time_entry

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: timezone semantics for time_since/time_until (local Europe/Zurich or any ISO 8601 with offset, normalized to UTC), which is non-obvious and not derivable from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a parameter list; every line earns its place given the 0% schema coverage. The Args block restates parameter names but adds the missing semantics, so it is not wasted space.

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 7-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers inputs and timezone handling but omits what is returned (created entry ID), validation/error behavior for bad customer or service IDs, and any auth/permission prerequisites beyond 'authenticated user'.

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 carry parameter meaning and largely does: all 7 params are explained, including defaults (billable=1/0, projects_id and text optional) and the critical datetime format with example. It could be stronger on confirming integer types for the *_id fields, but it compensates well for the zero coverage.

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+resource ('Add a manual time entry') and scopes it to the authenticated user. The word 'manual' implicitly separates it from start_my_clock/stop_my_clock, but the description never names those siblings, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'manual time entry' suggests this is for retroactive/logged entries rather than live timer control, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to start_my_clock, edit_my_time_entry, or delete_my_time_entry.

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