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

destructiveHint=true already declares this is a mutating operation, and the description is consistent with that. It usefully adds the future-time restriction, but does not disclose overwrite semantics even though start_time, end_time, and area_id are all required, nor any permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and editable fields front-loaded, followed by a trailing endpoint reference. Nothing is padded, though the raw 'Deputy: POST /api/...' fragment adds little for an agent that already has the tool.

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 mutation with no output schema and annotations limited to destructiveHint, the description covers what is edited and one validity rule but omits permission/auth needs and whether unlisted fields are cleared. Adequate, not complete.

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 every parameter including timestamp formats and the mealbreak range is already documented in the schema. The description's field list (start/end, area, meal break, 'supervisor comment') merely restates that, 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 ('correct') and resource ('an existing timesheet') and enumerates the editable fields, which cleanly separates it from create/approve/get timesheet siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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 only constraint offered is 'Times cannot be in the future,' which is a validity rule rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over deputy_update_shift, deputy_approve_timesheet, or a create path.

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