update_time_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'patch' implying mutation, but lacks details on idempotency, permissions, required fields, or error handling. The updates_json parameter is not documented, leaving its format (expected JSON string) unspecified, which is a key behavioral trait.

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 a single sentence with examples, containing no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently uses examples to clarify parameter usage.

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 patch operation with no annotations and two parameters (one complex JSON string), the description is too minimal. It lacks format specification for updates_json, return value indication (though output schema exists but not shown), and behavioral details like validation or side effects. The provided examples help but are insufficient for complete understanding.

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 has 2 required parameters with 0% coverage. The description partially compensates by listing example fields (narrative, hours, billed) that can be passed in updates_json. However, it does not describe time_entry_id or the exact structure of updates_json, leaving ambiguity. A baseline 3 is appropriate given partial but incomplete value addition.

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 clearly states the tool patches fields on a time entry, with concrete examples (add narrative, adjust hours, mark billed). The verb 'patch' specifies a partial update, and the resource 'time entry' is unambiguous. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like create_time_entry (creation) and get_time_entry (retrieval).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify that this is for modifying existing entries, while find or get should be used for reading, and create for new entries. Given many sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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