tempo_recall_timesheet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the full confirmation protocol, including the preview + confirmToken two-step fallback and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not say what side effects accompany the return to OPEN (e.g. whether prior approval records or comments are discarded), which is the main remaining gap for a destructive tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the state transition before the confirmation mechanics, and no wasted filler. The second sentence is dense but every clause (elicitation path, preview path, token rules) carries operational meaning.

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 multi-step mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation contract an agent must implement, which is the hardest part to get right. It omits the concrete payload of the preview/confirmation-required response and any post-recall side effects, leaving those to be discovered at call time.

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%, so every parameter (from/to, accountId, comment, reviewerAccountId, confirmToken) is already documented in the schema, including confirmToken's usage rules. The description adds no format, default, or constraint information beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (recall) and resource (a user's own timesheet) plus the exact precondition and state transition: submitted but not yet approved, returned to OPEN for correction. An agent can act on this without opening the schema. It stops short of differentiating from the close sibling tempo_reopen_timesheet, which performs an apparently similar state change, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

States the eligibility condition clearly (only timesheets that are submitted and not yet approved, and only the owner's own). It gives no explicit when-not to use this tool versus tempo_reopen_timesheet or tempo_reject_timesheet, so an agent must guess the routing in the ambiguous cases.

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