Approve Leave Request

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

Annotation idempotentHint is reinforced by explicit statement 'Idempotent: re-approving an already approved leave is a no-op.' Additionally, it discloses logging behavior (timestamp, approver) not covered by annotations. Adds valuable context beyond structured data.

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 brief but includes redundant bilingual text, doubling the length without adding unique information. It front-loads the purpose, which is good, but the redundancy reduces conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers idempotency and logging. However, it does not mention conditions (e.g., cannot approve if already rejected) or return values. Adequate but leaves room for more completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline score is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions. It mentions logging but does not connect to parameters.

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 states 'Approve a pending leave request' using a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from siblings like leave_reject and leave_cancel, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage via 'TRUST AREA — HR DECISION' but does not explicitly specify when to use or alternatives. The idempotency note is a behavioral hint, not a usage guideline. Lacks direct mention of when not to use.

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