출퇴근시각 등록 요청 상신 (한 건)

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is documented. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: it reopens the screen and re-runs validation just before submission, and it sends only when the result matches the preview. It does not cover failure handling or what happens when validation changes the data, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each with a purpose, and the token dependency is front-loaded before the consent constraint. Slightly verbose in restating the preview check twice ('검증을 다시 통과하고 미리보기와 같을 때만' and the approval sentence), but nothing is filler.

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?

It covers the prerequisite, the pre-submit re-validation, and the user-consent gate. For a one-parameter irreversible mutation with no output schema, this is nearly enough. Only the failure paths, such as an expired token or a changed validation, are missing.

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% and the single token parameter is already documented as the value returned by jade_prepare_clock_request for that date. The description reinforces the one-token-to-one-form, per-date binding, but adds no format, expiry, or reuse rules, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and object: it submits ('상신한다') exactly one clock-in/out time registration request form ('출퇴근시각 등록 요청서 한 장') for a given date, using a token from jade_prepare_clock_request. It also names the sibling it depends on, so an agent can distinguish it from the prepare tool without opening either schema.

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 gives both the prerequisite (a token from jade_prepare_clock_request, one per date) and an explicit condition for calling ('사용자가 미리보기를 보고 명시적으로 승인했을 때만'), plus the reason: the request goes straight to approvers. The prepare/commit route via the sibling tool is implied clearly enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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