attendance_insert_passage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the success outcome ('Returns HTTP 201 on success'), which is useful for a creation endpoint, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, duplicate handling, or any other side effects beyond creating a record.

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 sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the success response is stated efficiently. Every word 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but workable because the schema covers parameters well. However, it lacks broader context about how passage events relate to attendance records, what validation applies, or what the caller should do with the 201 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 input schema already fully documents every parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline but not above it.

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 names the action ('Record'), the resource ('a new access passage event'), and adds domain context ('RFID entry/exit'). This differentiates it from read-oriented siblings like attendance_passages_by_date and attendance_passage_by_id.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attendance_passage_by_id or direct_attendance_record. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or hints about typical workflows involving passage events.

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