Log actual work hours for Alibaba Cloud DevOps tasks by specifying work item details, time spent, and descriptions to track project effort.
[Project Management] 登记实际工时
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 工作项唯一标识 | |
| organizationId | Yes | organizationId | |
| actualTime | Yes | 实际工时 | |
| description | No | 工作描述 | |
| gmtEnd | Yes | 工作开始结束日期 | |
| gmtStart | Yes | 工作开始日期 | |
| operatorId | No | 操作者的useId，个人token时该参数无效 | |
| workType | No | 工作类型 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the action 'register actual working hours' without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions, idempotency, or side effects. With no annotations, 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 very concise with a single sentence and a category prefix. No redundancy, but it is too brief to be fully informative.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no context about return values, error handling, or workflow integration. It is minimally adequate.
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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 that this tool registers actual working hours, a specific and direct purpose. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like create_estimated_effort or update_effort_record, limiting clarity in context.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides a category label but no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.