apply_leave

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and return value, without mentioning whether the operation checks leave balance, requires permissions, is reversible, or triggers notifications. For a mutation tool, this lacks necessary behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and adding param documentation without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value adequately. However, it lacks context about practical usage, such as prerequisites (e.g., sufficient leave balance) or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema, this is acceptable.

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 description provides :param lines for both parameters, adding semantics to the otherwise empty schema descriptions. 'Employee ID' and 'List of leave dates' clarify the parameters' meanings, though the format of dates (e.g., date range vs individual dates) is not specified. This partly compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Apply for leave for an employee' clearly, specifying the verb (apply) and resource (leave) with a target (employee). It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, including leave balance and history queries, which serve different purposes.

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?

Usage is implied from the purpose: this is the tool to apply for leave. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to use it versus checking leave balance first or any approval workflow. Alternatives are not mentioned, and no exclusions are provided.

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