create_time_off_request

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

Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose required permissions, whether the request enters a pending/approval state, whether it can be cancelled, or any side effects of creating the request — all material for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no meaningful annotations and no output schema, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs: required preconditions, the resulting request state, permission requirements, and any link to the approval flow. It is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 each of the five parameters is already documented with its own description and format (YYYY-MM-DD dates). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('time-off request') with the target entity ('for a worker'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_time_off_requests or approve_time_off_request beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. an existing policy_id, an active worker), and never mentions the related approve_time_off_request sibling that continues the workflow. An agent must infer everything about invocation context.

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