Edit time entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses important non-obvious behaviors: minutes adjusts end, invalid end times are refused, tags replace rather than merge, and rate is in major currency. It does not mention permissions or response behavior, but the mutation-related surprises are largely surfaced.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the target and scope, then adds the important behavioral caveats. There is no filler or repetition of obvious schema content; every clause 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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is fairly complete. It covers the tricky mutation semantics: which fields move, what is rejected, what is replaced, and what units are used. A brief note about the return value would have made it fully self-contained, but the definition is sufficient for correct use.

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 only 55%, so the description meaningfully compensates by explaining the relationships among start/end/minutes, the replace behavior of tags, and the units for rate. Many simpler fields like note, task, project, and billable remain without schema descriptions, but the description's coverage of the ambiguous parameters is strong.

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 a specific verb and resource: change one logged entry by id. It also distinguishes this from siblings by clarifying patch semantics ('only the fields you pass move'), which separates it from entry_add, entry_delete, and entry_mark_billed. This adds real value beyond the title.

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?

It gives clear guidance on how to use the tool: target an existing entry by id and pass only the fields to update. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that an agent can choose it over add/delete/mark tools without much risk.

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