update_entry

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds the critical server-enforced authorship rule and the partial update behavior ('unset fields are left as-is'), providing significant behavioral context.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds two important notes (flexibility of fields, authorship rule) in a compact manner.

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?

The description effectively covers the tool's purpose, usage, and behavioral constraints. However, it does not mention the return value (e.g., whether it returns the updated entry or just a success status), which could be inferred but is not explicit. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the flexibility of field combination, but does not add new details about individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Edit' and the resource 'time entry', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_entry and log_time by specifying it edits existing entries.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with 'Any combination is valid; unset fields are left as-is' and crucial context about the authorship rule, telling the agent when the tool can and cannot be used.

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