reject_leave

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

The description discloses one key behavioral trait: 'The balance is left unchanged,' which is valuable because users might expect rejection to restore or deduct leave balance. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it doesn't disclose other side effects like whether notifications are sent, whether approver_id has authority requirements, or what happens to associated workflow state.

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?

Two sentences, both earn their place. The first states the action, the second adds the balance side-effect. No wasted words. It could arguably benefit from parameter clarification, but what's present is tight and front-loaded.

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?

Despite having only 3 parameters and no nested objects, the tool has 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, forcing the description to carry full weight. For a mutation tool that rejects requests, it should disclose authority requirements, side effects on request status, and what the note parameter does. The description is incomplete for the operational context an agent needs.

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%, and the description provides no parameter details at all. None of the three parameters (request_id, approver_id, note) are explained beyond their schema titles. The description does not clarify that request_id must reference a pending request, what authority approver_id must have, or the meaning/format of the optional note field.

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 clearly states the verb+resource: 'Reject a pending leave request.' This distinguishes it from siblings like approve_leave and cancel_leave. However, it doesn't reference the sibling distinctions explicitly or note any limitations about which leave types can be rejected, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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 use when a leave request is pending and should be rejected, contrasting implicitly with approve_leave. However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention that this applies only to pending requests (it says 'pending' but doesn't clarify that approved/rejected requests can't be re-rejected), and no alternatives named.

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