cancel_leave_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions authorization (only employee can cancel) but omits side effects like notification, irreversibility, or actions on invalid states (e.g., already approved). The output schema exists but is not described, leaving agents uninformed about the response.

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: one main sentence, one sentence of scope, and a two-line bullet list for parameters. No fluff or repetition, front-loading the core action. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool modifies state (cancel) and has an output schema, the description does not explain return values, error conditions (e.g., what if request not found?), or behavior on non-pending requests. It adequately differentiates from siblings but leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the tool description fully explains both parameters: 'request_id: Numeric ID of the leave request to cancel' and 'identifier: Employee code or email of the requester (for authorisation).' This adds meaning about types and purpose beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Cancel a pending leave request,' a clear verb+resource combination. It further specifies 'Only the employee who applied can cancel,' distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like 'approve_leave_request' or 'reject_leave_request' which involve different actors and actions.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating the tool is for pending requests and only by the requester. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for approved/rejected requests) or compare with siblings. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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