wedaka_clock_out

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ability to 'Support custom date/time for retroactive entries,' which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as whether a prior clock-in is required, whether duplicate entries are handled, or idempotency, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and adds the key behavioral detail about retroactive entries without waste. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core purpose and the notable retroactive entry feature. It does not cover edge cases like prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and the complete schema, it is reasonably complete. A slightly more detailed note about validation or return values would elevate it to 5.

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 fully documents the parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'custom date/time' which maps to clock_date and clock_time, but it does not explain the note parameter beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Clock out' and 'Records the end of work for an employee.' It uses a specific verb (clock out/record) and resource (end of work), and the sibling tool wedaka_clock_in makes the distinction obvious without needing explicit 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?

The description implies usage: use when an employee is ending their workday. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like wedaka_clock_in for starting work or wedaka_get_timelog for viewing logs. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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