Submit a timesheet

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the paid-plan requirement and implies the operation is on the user's own timesheet, but does not disclose potential side effects such as irreversibility, approval record creation, or notification triggers.

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 consists of two terse sentences: the first states the action, the second adds a key prerequisite. No fillers or redundant wording, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 submission tool with two clear parameters and annotations, the description covers the core action and a crucial requirement (paid plan). It omits details about conflicting with existing submissions or post-submission behavior, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining structural aspects adequately.

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 both parameters are well documented in the input schema (week_start and workspace_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Submits your week for approval' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like clockify_list_approval_requests that operate on approval requests rather than submitting them. The title 'Submit a timesheet' reinforces the primary action without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., clockify_list_approval_requests for viewing submissions, or clockify_log_time for editing entries). The only condition mentioned is 'Needs a paid plan,' which states a prerequisite but does not explain selection logic or exclusions.

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