update_absence

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It doesn't mention that all nine fields are required (implying a full update), what happens to unspecified fields (additionalProperties false), or any side effects. With readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, the description could have explained the idempotent nature or the requirement to supply all fields, but it remains silent.

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 under-specified rather than concise. A single participial phrase "Updating existing absence" is not a complete sentence and provides no structured information. It is too short to be useful, similar to the "Process" example.

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 tool with 9 required parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain the update semantics, required fields, return values, or any operational context. This is a completely insufficient description for a complex 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description names no parameters at all. It does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation in the schema. The agent is left without any explanation of start_date, end_date, half_day, disability, paid_hours, or continued_pay beyond raw names.

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 "Updating existing absence" states the action (updating) and the resource (absence), but it is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name and provides no details about what aspects can be updated. It vaguely distinguishes from delete/create siblings but lacks scope, so it falls between a tautology and a clear statement.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having an existing absence ID, nor does it contrast with create_absence_for_employee or delete_absence. There is no context to help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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