Modifier une feuille de temps

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description warns about the array-replacement semantics for regularTimes/exceptionalTimes (sending a single line erases the month) and clarifies that 'state' is not writable. This is critical behavioral context not covered by annotations or schema.

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 a clear purpose statement, a 'when' section, an alternative reference, and bulleted critical notes. It is concise, front-loaded with the most important warnings, and every sentence earns its place.

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 write operation with complex array semantics, the description covers when to use, how to use (including the destructive replacement warning), what not to do (state), and the return value. With an output schema present, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions, but the description adds essential meaning: it explains the full-replacement rule for the arrays and notes the non-writable 'state' field. This goes beyond the schema, providing operational context that an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 verb 'update', the resource 'existing CRA', and what it does (comments, closure, or complete line replacement). It distinguishes from create via explicit alternative, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (for an already open month found via search) and when not to (use create if no CRA exists). Names the alternative tool (boond_timesheets_create) and the condition that selects it, leaving no room for inference.

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