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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals a mutating operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds a useful validity constraint (no future times) and the underlying endpoint, but does not say whether omitted optional fields are preserved or cleared, what permissions are required, or how errors surface.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and correctable fields. The trailing 'Deputy: POST /api/v1/supervise/timesheet/update' is marginally redundant with sibling conventions but is short and harmless.

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 destructive 6-parameter mutation with no output schema and no readOnly/safety annotations beyond destructiveHint, the description covers the action and one constraint but omits partial-vs-full update semantics, permission requirements, and result behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented with types, ranges and formats (unix seconds or ISO 8601). The description's mention of meal break and comment mirrors the schema without adding format or default semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Correct an existing timesheet') and enumerates the exact fields it can change (start/end time, area, meal break, supervisor comment), which cleanly separates it from siblings like deputy_approve_timesheet and deputy_update_shift. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

'Correct an existing timesheet' implies the usage context, and 'Times cannot be in the future' is a real invocation constraint. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives (e.g. approve_timesheet, get_timesheet), so usage is only implied.

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