hcm_create_absence

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: false already declares this is a write operation, and the description's 'Create' aligns with that — no contradiction. The description adds a behavioral trait beyond the annotation by hinting at an approval workflow ('approval unless --write'), which is useful context, but it's vague and unexplained — the agent doesn't know what --write means or how approval is triggered.

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 short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, which is efficient. However, the parenthetical 'approval unless --write' wastes its space on an unexplained flag rather than conveying actionable information — it's cryptic, not informative.

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 create operation with a free-form nested object body and no output schema, this definition is incomplete. The agent has no information about required body fields, the approval workflow's implications, or return values. With no schema constraints and 0% description coverage, there is nothing to guide a correct call.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the `body` parameter, but it says nothing about it. The body is an unconstrained object (additionalProperties: {}) with no field documentation, and the description doesn't mention what fields an absence entry needs (e.g., worker, absence type, dates). The agent cannot construct a valid request from this definition.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create an absence entry'), which clearly distinguishes it from the many absence siblings like hcm_search_absences, hcm_get_absence, hcm_update_absence, and hcm_delete_absence based on the action verb. However, it doesn't name any sibling explicitly, and the parenthetical 'approval unless --write' is cryptic and detracts from clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of related tools such as hcm_update_absence, hcm_delete_absence, or the approval-flow siblings (hcm_list_pending_approvals, hcm_approve_write, hcm_deny_write). The 'approval unless --write' hint gestures at a workflow but doesn't explain the conditions for using this tool.

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