cor_accept_suggested_hours

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Accept suggested hours' without explaining side effects, data modifications, authorization requirements, or error states. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 very short, with only two lines: a sentence and an argument list. It front-loads the purpose, but lacks structure such as sections, examples, or notes. While concise, it omits useful details that could fit without bloat.

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?

Despite having only one simple parameter and an output schema (unseen), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'accept' entails, what the output contains, or how it interacts with other hours-related tools. More context is needed for a complete understanding.

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?

The description adds a brief explanation for the single parameter: 'Unix timestamp for the date'. This clarifies the schema's title 'Datetime Unix' and indicates the format. However, it does not specify the precision (e.g., start of day) or any allowed range. Given 0% schema description coverage, this adds value but is not thorough.

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 clearly states the action: 'Accept suggested hours for a given date.' It specifies the verb 'accept' and the resource 'suggested hours'. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like `cor_change_hours_status` or `cor_log_hours`, which might have overlapping functionality. Hence, it is clear but lacks differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent without context for proper selection.

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