approve_leave_request

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

The description discloses that the tool deducts days from balance (mutation) and that the manager_note is visible to the employee. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It could mention reversibility or error cases, but the key side effects are covered.

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 highly concise: two sentences plus bulleted parameter explanations. It front-loads the main action and role requirement, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the role, effect, and parameters adequately. It could be more complete by mentioning potential error conditions (e.g., already approved, insufficient balance), but the core functionality is well-described.

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 must add meaning. It fully explains both parameters: 'request_id: Numeric ID of the leave request to approve' and 'manager_note: Optional note from the manager (visible to the employee).' This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Approve a pending leave request and deduct days from the employee's balance.' It specifies the action (approve), the resource (leave request), and the effect (deduct days), distinguishing it from siblings like reject_leave_request or cancel_leave_request.

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 provides explicit role context: 'Call this only when acting as an HR manager or team lead.' While it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, the role guidance is clear and helpful for an AI agent to decide when to use this tool.

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