log_interval

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that times are wall-clock in the user's timezone and the expected format, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., creating a record), prerequisites (which parameter is required: type_id or type_name), or output behavior, leaving significant behavioral context unknown.

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, followed by a critical input-format constraint. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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 description adequately conveys the purpose and a key input detail, but given 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, it does not fully explain how to choose between type_id and type_name, whether either is required, or what the tool returns. The schema covers much, but optional params like tags/comment remain unexplained.

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 covers 71% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds the wall-clock/timezone context relevant to 'from' and 'to', but tags and comment are left undefined in both schema and description. Since coverage is above 50%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'log' with a clear resource 'completed time entry' and the modifier 'retroactively', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_activity/stop_activity that handle live tracking, and update_activity which modifies existing entries.

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: this tool is for retroactively logging completed time entries. It implies when to use it (when an entry has already finished) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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