Log a finished block manually

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 states that the time is written to the ledger, but does not mention authentication, side effects (e.g., whether the task is marked complete), reversibility, or rate limits. The description is sparse and does not add substantial context beyond the basic action.

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 concise at one sentence, with no wasted words. However, the brevity comes at the expense of completeness; it is structured well but lacks necessary detail. The word count is appropriate, but the content is thin.

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 2 parameters with no schema coverage, no output schema, and a sibling group that includes dwt_log_session and dwt_start_session, the description is minimal and likely insufficient for an agent to distinguish and correctly invoke the tool. It lacks information about prerequisites, input validity expectations, and return behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions "N minutes on one task" which provides minimal context for minutes and task_id, but does not clarify that task_id must reference an existing task or the specific constraints (e.g., minutes range). It adds little value over the field names alone.

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 "Record" and the resource "focus time" with a specific scope: time that already happened with no running session, written to the ledger. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dwt_log_session, which likely handles similar logging. The purpose is clear but not distinctly positioned against alternatives.

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 implies usage when there is no running session ("no running session"), providing some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus dwt_log_session or dwt_start_session, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicitly explained.

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