submit_for_approval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Submit for approval' implies a state-changing workflow action, but it says nothing about what changes (locking, status transitions), whether it is reversible, required permissions, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The action, target, and scope are all stated immediately.

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-style workflow tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what submitting does to the entries, whether it can be undone, or whether a manager must already be assigned.

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 both parameters (period enum and startTime with ISO 8601 detail) are already fully documented. The description's phrase 'given week/period' adds no meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (submit) and resource (time entries) plus the workflow target (manager approval) and scope (a given week/period). It is clearly distinguishable from CRUD siblings like update_time_entry or create_time_entry, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information. The only guidance is implicit in the purpose itself ('submit for approval'), with no mention of when this is appropriate versus editing entries first or contacting a manager.

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