Freelo Update Work Report

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds semantic behavior beyond the flags: this is a corrective, non-destructive partial update to time and description fields. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the purpose clause adds practical value.

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 two-parameter partial update with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, nothing operationally necessary is missing. The schema covers where workReportId comes from and which fields are updatable; the description covers when and why to call the tool.

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 applies: workReportId, reportData, and nested fields are fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely maps to parameters via 'correct time entries or add descriptions' and adds no new parameter-level detail.

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 'Updates an existing work report', a specific verb plus target resource, and the second sentence narrows the intent to correcting time entries or adding descriptions. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling freelo_create_work_report, which would be used for new reports, and from read-only report tools.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to correct time entries or add descriptions to an existing report. It does not explicitly name alternatives like freelo_create_work_report or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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