hr_leave_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions routing 'under your JWT, tenant, and company scope' but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, destructiveness, or any behavioral traits.

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 short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the action name. However, it includes technical routing detail ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher') which may not be essential.

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 tool is part of a large HR sibling group, the description lacks enough context for an agent to understand what leave_request does, what inputs it expects meaningfully, and what output to expect (output schema exists but is not described). It is incomplete for practical use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' It clarifies that inputs are optional JSON but is vague about what the objective should contain.

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 says 'Run the hr domain agent action `leave_request`,' which is nearly a tautology (the tool name is hr_leave_request). It does not specify what the action does (e.g., submit, approve, check status), and it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like hr_live_leave_balance or hr_leave_planning_loop.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description only explains routing mechanics, not usage context.

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