Commit a freee clock action

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write; the description enriches this by disclosing the real-world side effect ('real punch'), the mandatory authorization requirement, and the no-retry policy for unknown writes. It also explains that the agent may validate the fingerprint and proceed without a second prompt, which is important behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences carry a large amount of decision-relevant information: the core operation, the sequencing relative to preview, the user-authorization condition, and the safety rule. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers the invocation-critical requirements: when to call, authorization, fingerprint validation, and no-retry behavior. It does not describe the return payload or mismatch handling, but the included guidance lets the agent invoke correctly and avoid unsafe calls.

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 coverage is high (75%) and the individual parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed, especially for fingerprint and confirm. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating the authorization and preview concepts; 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 states a specific operation: 'Create one real punch after its matching preview', using a precise verb and resource. It clearly differentiates this tool from the prepare/status siblings by emphasizing the real punch versus the preview and the commit-after-preview sequence.

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 explicit call conditions: after the matching preview and only when the action or an active scoped business policy is user-authorized. It also gives explicit prohibitions ('never call without authorization or retry an unknown write'), although it does not name the prepare tool as an alternative by name.

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