Commit a freee monthly attendance approval action

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: every call recomputes the payment-month/work-month mapping, matches the complete monthly review and fingerprint, and stops before any click if mapping is ambiguous or changed. The explicit 'never retry an unknown write' guidance is especially useful for a destructive tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses three focused sentences. Each sentence adds important operational or safety context, though the phrase 'real 月次勤怠締め' and some policy phrasing could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 destructive single-item commit tool, the description supplies the critical context: authorization requirements, sequential use allowance, fingerprint matching, mapping recomputation, and no-retry behavior. It is complete enough for safe invocation, though it does not explicitly reference the prepare tool by name or describe the success response.

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 documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the confirmation and fingerprint concepts but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for full 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Approve or return one real 月次勤怠締め application.' The name and title also clearly indicate this is the commit step for a monthly approval action, distinguishing it from prepare/review siblings. It is not tautological and gives the agent a precise sense of what the tool does.

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 states when to use the tool: only after authorization for the exact action or an active scoped business policy. It also gives explicit negative guidance: ambiguous or changed mapping stops before any click and unknown writes must never be retried. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative prepare tool or say 'use the prepare action first,' though the schema's fingerprint reference implies this.

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