set_punch_in

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

With no annotations, the description provides full behavioral clarity by stating the effect (enabling/disabling punch in) and the meaning of the enabled parameter. It does not disclose potential side effects, but for a simple boolean setter, the action is transparent enough.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one sentence and an args list. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 boolean setter with an output schema, the description provides all essential context: the purpose, the parameter meaning, and the recording context. Return values are not explained because an output schema exists, making this sufficiently 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?

The description explicitly explains the single parameter: 'True to enable punch in, False to disable.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic boolean title 'Enabled,' fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states 'Enable or disable punch in for recording,' specifying the exact action and resource. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool set_punch_out by referencing 'punch in' specifically.

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 in recording contexts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like set_punch_out or get_punch_state. No when-not or alternative tool comparison is offered.

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