clock_in_employee

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does usefully flag WRITE and "Affects real working-time records," making the side effect clear. However, it omits behavior an agent needs: what happens on duplicate clock-ins, whether the operation is idempotent, required permissions, and what an error looks like.

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 short fragments with zero waste, and the WRITE marker is front-loaded so the mutation nature is immediately visible. It leans slightly toward under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and side effect but not result shape, duplicate-handling, or permissions. Adequate as a minimum, but there are clear gaps for a write operation.

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?

There is only one parameter (employeeId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it doesn't say where the employee ID comes from or what happens if it's invalid.

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+resource ("registers a clock-in for an employee") and names the system (Holded time tracking, API v2). It implicitly distinguishes itself from clock_out_employee and pause_employee via the direction of the action, though it doesn't name those siblings 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus clock_out_employee, create_employee_time, or pause_employee, and no exclusions or preconditions. The closest thing is the warning "Affects real working-time records," which is a side-effect note rather than routing guidance.

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