Edit time entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most important behavior: this is a partial update and omitted fields are left untouched. It does not mention validation behavior, permissions, side effects, failure modes, or the return value, leaving moderate transparency gaps.

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 no filler. The key partial-update caveat is stated immediately after the action, making the description easy to scan and process.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It gives enough to attempt a simple edit, but does not explain return semantics, error/validation behavior, or the meaning of several fields, so an agent cannot fully predict the outcome of calling 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?

The schema documents only 6 of 11 parameters (55%), so field descriptions are incomplete. The description adds a useful generic semantic—only supplied fields are changed—which affects how all parameters should be interpreted. However, it does not clarify ambiguous fields like task, project, tags, note, or billable, so the added parameter meaning is shallow.

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 states a specific action ('Change fields') on a specific resource ('existing entry'), and the title clarifies it is a time-entry edit. It is distinguishable from entry_add, entry_delete, and entry_list, though it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 phrase 'existing entry' implies this tool is for modifying already-created time entries, and 'Only the fields you pass are changed' implies a partial-update workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or routing to entry_add/entry_delete, so usage context is only implied.

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