set_punch_out

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the direct effect (enable/disable punch out) but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, permissions, or impact on ongoing recordings. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 concise with no unnecessary content. It front-loads the primary purpose and follows with a clear parameter breakdown. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to parse.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the action and the parameter. It lacks some context around usage and side effects, but given the tool's simplicity, it does not feel severely incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so clearly by explaining the 'enabled' parameter: 'True to enable punch out, False to disable.' This adds meaning beyond the raw boolean type and fully clarifies the parameter's purpose.

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 tool's action: 'Enable or disable punch out for recording.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool set_punch_in, though the resource name makes the difference obvious.

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 the use case (changing punch out state for recording) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_punch_in or get_punch_state. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, making it a minimum viable usage description.

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