Clock in days

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation, each day is re-validated before writing, and already-clocked days are rejected. However, it does not mention potential side effects like whether the action is reversible or any rate limits.

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 paragraph but well-structured and informative. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by grouping related 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains input and behavior. It mentions rejection of already-clocked days, which implies some response handling. However, it does not describe the success response or potential error messages.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds significant value: explains that dates should come from list_pending_days, that ranges override the schedule for all dates in the call, and that the default uses the theoretical schedule from Woffu.

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 specific verb 'Clocks' and identifies the resource 'days in Woffu'. It clearly states it writes to the user's official timesheet, and the tool is distinct from siblings which deal with time-off and availability.

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?

Explicitly instructs to show the user dates and time ranges from list_pending_days and get confirmation before calling. Provides clear guidance on when to use the optional ranges parameter and cautions that it overrides all dates, so group dates that share a schedule.

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