clock_out_employee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The explicit 'WRITE:' prefix usefully signals a mutation and naming API v2 adds a little context, but it omits whether the clock-out timestamp is auto-generated, whether it fails when no open clock-in exists, and whether it is idempotent.

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?

One tight sentence with the mutation type front-loaded as 'WRITE:' and no filler. Every clause carries information about the action, target, and system.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials of what it does, but with no annotations the description should also say what happens on a failed clock-out or how the timestamp is determined. It is adequate but leaves real behavioral questions open.

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 100% for the single employeeId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no meaning about the parameter, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb ('registers a clock-out') and resource ('an employee in Holded time tracking'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as clock_in_employee or pause_employee. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it lands just below the top band.

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_in_employee, pause_employee, unpause_employee, or create_employee_time. Nothing states preconditions such as an employee having an open clock-in, so the agent must infer all conditions for use.

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