hcm_submit_time_card

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so this is known to be a mutating operation. The description adds the behavioral distinction between approval submission and direct write, which is useful beyond the annotation, but it does not explain the approval workflow, side effects, or response behavior.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words and the main action is front-loaded. However, the phrase 'unless --write' is contextually under-specified, so conciseness comes at the cost of clarity in that detail.

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 mutation tool with one opaque body parameter and no output schema, this description is far too incomplete. An agent cannot know the required payload structure, the exact effect of approval versus '--write', or what the tool returns. It needs substantially more guidance to be invoked correctly.

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 has a single required 'body' object with no property descriptions and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what the body should contain, what fields are required, or how the approval/write distinction maps to the body. This is a critical gap.

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 identifies the verb and resource: submit a time card. The parenthetical '(approval unless --write)' adds a mode distinction, though the meaning of '--write' is not explained. It is specific enough to distinguish from the many search/get time-record siblings.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_search_time_records or hcm_approve_write. It implies a submission action but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria for choosing this tool.

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