autotask_create_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 burden. It reveals that the tool creates (mutates) data and can be linked to various entities, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds essential information about the tool's functionality. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, 3 required) and lack of output schema, the description covers the core use cases and parameter relationships well. It could mention that the tool returns the created time entry's ID or confirmation, but not essential for invocation success.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the 'Regular Time' concept and providing example categories, thereby clarifying the relationship between ticketID/taskID/projectID and the category field. This exceeds the minimum.

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 it creates a time entry in Autotask and distinguishes between two modes: tied to a ticket/task/project or as 'Regular Time'. This specificity and differentiation from sibling tools makes it a 5.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (creating time entries) and the two main scenarios (parented vs. regular time). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'autotask_update_time_entry', so it misses the top score.

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