Turn a meeting into a time entry

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

Explicitly states 'Writes nothing', which is a key side-effect disclosure given the lack of annotations. It also clarifies that it returns arguments rather than performing the entry creation, but doesn't mention potential validation or error behavior.

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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. The key information—what it does, its side-effect-free nature, and the follow-up action—is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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?

Sufficient for a tool with 4 straightforward parameters. It tells the user exactly what to do with the output ('pass the JSON straight to entry_add'), though a bit more detail about the return shape would have been helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 already covers all parameter meanings (event_id source, project/client, rate format, currency fallback). The description adds no extra parameter detail, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it takes an event and returns the exact arguments for entry_add, with the specific purpose of converting a past meeting into billable time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as entry_add or events_list.

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?

Indicates when to use it ('a meeting that already happened becomes billable time') and directs the user to pass the result to entry_add. It doesn't explicitly contrast with every alternative, but the use case is clear.

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