Clock Out (Attendance)

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral details: stamps clockOutAt and computes durationMinutes. It explicitly states idempotency, reinforcing the annotation. No contradictions. The description adds value beyond annotations.

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 English part is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded. The Spanish translation adds length but serves a bilingual user base, which is acceptable. No filler words.

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?

Given the simple tool (1 param, good annotations, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: action, idempotency, and computed result. A minor gap is the lack of prerequisites (e.g., entry must be open). Output schema likely handles return info, so no need to describe it.

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% and the description effectively repeats the schema's description for entryId ('Open attendance entry ID'). It adds no new information about the parameter's format or constraints. With high coverage, baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Close an open attendance entry'), the resource ('attendance entry'), and specifics ('Stamps clockOutAt and computes durationMinutes'). It also notes idempotency. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'attendance_clock_in', the verb 'clock out' and the name make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage (closing an open entry) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have an open entry) or contrast with alternatives like 'attendance_clock_in'. The idempotency note is helpful but insufficient for full usage context.

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