tempo_recall_timesheet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the state change (returning to OPEN) and the mandatory confirmation mechanism (either a prompt or a two-step token fallback). This goes beyond the annotation's simple destructive flag, providing concrete behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose before the confirmation flow. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though the confirmation logic is dense and could be slightly restructured for readability. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not describe what the response will contain after a successful recall (e.g., the recalled timesheet data or a success message). It also does not mention any post-action state beyond returning to OPEN. While the confirmation flow and preconditions are covered, the missing response information leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's return value.

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 each parameter has a detailed description, including the confirmToken's intricate behavior. The tool description itself adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 ('Recall'), a resource ('timesheet'), and a precise condition ('submitted but not yet approved'), along with the expected outcome ('returning to OPEN'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tempo_approve_timesheet, tempo_reject_timesheet, and tempo_reopen_timesheet, which involve different actions on different states.

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 conveys when to use the tool (for a user's submitted-but-unapproved timesheet needing correction) and details the confirmation flow, including how clients without elicitation should proceed with a preview and confirmToken. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X', but the specific condition inherently guides selection.

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