Edit Time Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the dual read/write nature (listing without id, mutation with id), the ownership constraint (only the person's own entries), the session-time exclusion, and the consent requirement. It doesn't state whether deletes are permanent or whether changes are reversible, which is the one behavioral trait left uncovered for a destructive-capable tool.

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 core correction action and the add_time relationship are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. It is slightly run-on with several clauses packed into the first sentence, but no waste.

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-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers modes, exclusions, ownership, and consent. The main gap is the return/confirmation behavior for destructive deletes, which matters given the absence of any output schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining the id/no-id duality that governs the whole parameter set: without id, it lists the person's recent added time with ids and `days` controls the lookback. That interaction is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Corrects time the person added (add_time)' — and enumerates the concrete operations (move project/day, change minutes or note, delete). It explicitly names and distinguishes the sibling add_time it complements, and clarifies the no-id listing mode, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit routing to add_time (corrections vs. initial logging), names the alternative listing behavior when id is absent, states an exclusion ('time measured from sessions cannot be changed here'), and imposes a permission guardrail ('Only when the person asks'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all present.

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