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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds real context beyond that: new requests are always filed as 'requested' never 'approved', the approve/decline path lives in decide_leave_request, and no ledger entries are posted. It does not describe edit-side effects on existing fields, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary action stated first, then the id-based mode switch, then the status and ledger caveats. No sentence is redundant or padding.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no required params and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, mode selection and side effects well. The remaining gap is three unmentioned parameters (units, archived, sicknote) and unspecified behavior when editing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names employee, leave type, start/end dates, days, reason and notes, and explains the id toggle, but leaves units, archived and sicknote (three of eleven parameters) undocumented anywhere, so coverage is only partial.

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 precise verb pair (file or edit) and resource (leave request) and enumerates the fields involved. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling decide_leave_request, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing rules: omit id to file a new request, pass an id to edit. It names the alternative tool (decide_leave_request) for approve/decline/cancel, and states that a new request is never auto-approved, so when-to-use and when-not are fully specified.

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