tempo_submit_timesheet

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: the exact state transition, the requirement to obtain user confirmation first, and the two-step confirmToken fallback for clients lacking elicitation (never on the first call, never invented, never reused). This is well beyond the structured safety hints.

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?

Front-loads the core action and state change in the first clause, then spends the remainder on the confirmation flow -- the least obvious part. The second sentence is dense and parenthetical-heavy, but each clause carries needed behavioral information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the state transition, the confirmation contract and the fallback token flow, which is what an agent most needs. It stops short of describing the successful return payload or failure modes (e.g., timesheet not in OPEN state), leaving 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the confirmToken semantics and the tempo_get_periods hint for `from`. The description reinforces the period concept but adds no new syntax or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb (Submit), resource (a user's timesheet), the scope (given period), and the resulting state transition (OPEN to WAITING_FOR_APPROVAL). This lets an agent distinguish it cleanly from the sibling tempo_approve_timesheet / tempo_reject_timesheet / tempo_reopen_timesheet / tempo_recall_timesheet actions, which operate 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 gives clear context: submit for approval, and it mandates user confirmation before the call is finalized -- a prerequisite that shapes how the agent should invoke it. It does not explicitly contrast against the other timesheet-state siblings, but the state transition it names makes the choice of tool unambiguous in practice.

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