Update actual work hours for a specific task in Alibaba Cloud DevOps projects to maintain accurate project tracking and resource management.
[Project Management] 更新登记实际工时
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organizationId | Yes | organizationId | |
| workitemId | Yes | 工作项唯一标识 | |
| id | Yes | 工时记录唯一标识 | |
| 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?
No annotations provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral traits like update semantics (partial vs full replacement), authorization needs, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence with a category prefix. No unnecessary information, but could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.
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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks information on return values, update behavior, and how it relates to sibling tools like list_effort_records.
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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, meeting the baseline for high 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?
The description clearly states the tool updates actual work hours in project management. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_effort_record.
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, such as create_effort_record for new entries or list_effort_records for viewing. No prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.