Add Time Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: this is an additive manual entry tool, only used on explicit user instruction, defaulting to the session's project and today. It also explains the date lower bound tied to the admin's reporting window and last_update, but it omits how duplicates, permissions, and the resulting record are handled.

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 definition is three focused sentences and front-loads the core action and key constraint ('Only when the person says so'). Every sentence adds useful context with no fluff.

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 an 8-parameter, 1-required, no-output-schema tool, the description plus rich schema covers the essential behavior: manual-only use, default project/date, and date-range limits. The main remaining gap is that it does not point to edit_time for later corrections or describe error behavior when a date is outside the allowed window.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: project defaults to the session's project, date defaults to today, and date is constrained by the team's reporting window. This goes beyond what the schema alone states for those optional fields.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: adds time for work the agent could not measure, with concrete examples like meetings, calls, and work away from the computer. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling edit_time tool.

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?

It provides a strong explicit trigger: 'Only when the person says so.' The examples clarify when this manual-entry tool is appropriate, though it does not name alternatives such as edit_time for corrections.

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