hr_leave_request

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds only routing context under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not disclose the actual effects of the leave_request action, such as creating or modifying a leave record, which is important for a tool marked destructiveHint=true.

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 and scannable, with a clear Args section and no filler. The first sentence is close to a restatement of the tool name, but the rest is compact and each remaining part serves a purpose.

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?

The description lacks the core information needed for correct selection and invocation: what the HR leave request does, when to use it, and how to structure message or inputs. The output schema may cover return values, but the input semantics and behavioral context are too vague given the enormous sibling tool list.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the Args section partially compensates by labeling message as a 'free-text objective' and inputs as an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs.' However, it does not explain what structured inputs the leave_request action expects or what a useful message should contain, so the compensation is incomplete.

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`' but never states what the leave request action actually does or what outcome it produces. The routing and scope information is mechanics, not purpose, so the description essentially restates the tool name without semantic content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like hr_live_leave_balance, hr_leave_planning_loop, and hr_live_advance_application are never mentioned, so an agent cannot determine which HR tool fits a given task.

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