Mark Attendance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does add an explicit access trait ('not gated') and a 'routine' severity cue, which is useful. It does not mention side effects such as overwriting an existing attendance status, validation of worker_id, or error 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and a compact routine/permission qualifier. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, temporal scope, and permission profile. It leaves minor gaps around overwrite/validation behavior and alternative selection, but nothing blocking for a routine boolean update.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters. It implicitly maps present to 'whether a worker is present today' and worker_id to 'a worker', adding the day-scoped meaning. It still does not define ID format or allowed values, leaving some burden on the property names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('whether a worker is present today'), clearly distinguishing attendance marking from sibling tools like log_hourly_output or update_worker. It avoids tautology and gives the agent an actionable operation.

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?

It provides minimal usage context: 'Routine, not gated' indicates a common, permission-light operation, and 'today' narrows the temporal scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as log_hourly_output or update_worker, nor any exclusions.

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