wedaka_clock_in

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (recording start of work) and a notable feature (custom date/time for retroactive entries), but doesn't mention permissions, error conditions, or idempotency. This is more transparent than a bare 'Clock in' but still leaves some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Clock in'), and every sentence adds value: what it does, for whom, and a key capability. There is no unnecessary fluff.

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?

This is a simple tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema. The description clearly explains the primary purpose and the retroactive date/time feature, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't explain return values, but that is not required given the simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about retroactive entries for date/time parameters, but it doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No compensation is needed given the high schema coverage.

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 ('Clock in') and the resource ('Records the start of work for an employee'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wedaka_clock_out (clocking out) and wedaka_get_timelog (retrieving logs), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 implies usage at the start of work and explicitly mentions support for retroactive entries, giving clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use wedaka_clock_out for clocking out'), but the sibling names and clear purpose make the intended usage obvious.

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