gerent365_approve_payroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action 'approve' but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to the payroll period after approval. This is a significant transparency gap for an action that likely mutates state.

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 a single, concise, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and a key constraint ('previously calculated') without any wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter action, the description provides the essential context that this is an approval step following calculation. However, it does not explain what happens after approval (e.g., whether it enables payment), and there is no output schema or annotations to fill that gap. The tool is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'id' described as 'ID del periodo de nómina'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly uses a specific verb 'Aprueba' (approve) and resource 'periodo de nómina' (payroll period), and adds the qualifier 'previamente calculado' (previously calculated). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_payroll, pay_payroll, and create_payroll_period.

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 phrase 'previamente calculado' clearly indicates the tool should be used after calculation, providing contextual guidance for the workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it does not reach the highest bar of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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