op_log_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the acceptance of human-readable time formats, the optional nature of activity_id and its fallback to default activity, the behavior when activities are mandatory and not configured, the default date for spent_on, and the return format. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 well-structured with an initial purpose line, prerequisites, a clear Args list, and a Returns section. It covers necessary detail without unnecessary verbosity; the time format examples are useful and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all required aspects: purpose, prerequisites, all parameters with defaults and formats, potential server rejection scenarios, and a summary of the return value. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is explained with meaning beyond the schema. For example, hours includes specific accepted formats, activity_id references another tool and explains default behavior, and spent_on specifies format and default. This adds substantial value over the bare schema.

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's function: 'Записать затраченное время к задаче (time entry)' (Log time spent to a task). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like op_list_time_entries which lists time entries rather than creating them.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by listing prerequisites: the 'Time and costs' module must be enabled and the user must have 'Log time' permission. It also references op_list_time_entry_activities as a source for activity_id. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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