Punch the time clock

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that the timestamp is set at receipt time, that the record is immutable via the API and needs a web-UI correction request, and that conflicting punches are refused unless forced. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before invoking a destructive write.

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?

A single tight paragraph front-loads the verb and the type enum, then moves to the immutability warning and the force escape hatch. No sentence is filler and the highest-risk information is placed early.

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 destructive, output-schema-less write tool, it covers timing, immutability, conflict handling, and force semantics thoroughly. It leaves the telework parameter unmentioned and says nothing about what a successful call returns, both minor gaps.

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%, so the enum, required flag, and force/telework meanings are already documented; the description repeats the type list and adds Japanese labels but no new syntax or format detail. It reinforces the force condition, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('a punch') and enumerates every valid punch type, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with read-side siblings like get_stamps or get_today_status, which keeps it shy of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete decision rules: confirm the type with the user if unsure, and only pass force when the user insists after a conflict. It does not name alternative tools or say when to prefer a read tool first, so context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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