Add Timeclock Entry

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key non-obvious behaviors: times are in employee's local time with a specific format, entries must be in open sequences, and module prerequisites. This goes beyond the simple 'add' verb and helps the agent understand operational constraints. It doesn't elaborate on error handling, but for a create operation, the stated preconditions and time semantics are substantial.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second provides time format and constraints, and the third covers employee identification. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 creation tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: preconditions (open sequence, module enabled), time handling, and employee identification. It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but given the schema richness and the tool's straightforward CRUD nature, this is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. A perfect score would require either an output schema or additional edge-case behavior disclosure.

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%, meaning all 9 parameters have individual descriptions. The description itself adds little beyond the schema: it restates the time format and identification alternatives, which are already in the schema. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description does not significantly enrich parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Add a timesheet/timeclock entry for an employee,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_timesheets and get_timesheet. It also specifies the scope (employee-level) and object type (timeclock entry), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit conditions for use: entries can only be added to OPEN timesheet sequences, and the timeclock module must be enabled for the company and the employee's template. It also clarifies how to identify the employee (employee_code or employee_email). While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, the constraints give clear guidance on when this tool is applicable versus when another tool like list_timesheets might be used first.

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