log_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this mutates the user's real schedule, requires the blocks:write scope, and needs PYUNTO_TM_PASSWORD for encrypted memos. It omits other behavioral traits such as overlap/conflict handling, reversibility, or validation errors.

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 tight sentences with the mutation side-effect and the confirm-first warning front-loaded. No filler, though the sentence packing scope, memo and password into one clause is slightly dense.

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 6-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects, auth and the encryption password requirement well. It leaves gaps around conflict/overlap behavior and what a successful call returns, but is otherwise adequate.

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 every parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning beyond the schema (the memo/encryption context), which the schema already states as 'Encrypted client-side'.

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 ('Record a block of worked time on the calendar'), so the agent knows exactly what it does and can tell it apart from read tools like list_time_blocks. It does not explicitly contrast with update_time_block or delete_time_block, which would have sharpened sibling differentiation.

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 a clear usage condition and a prerequisite: confirm project, date and times with the user before calling, since it writes to the real schedule. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (e.g. update_time_block) or stating when not to use this one.

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