Request time off

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

The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds the context that the request is filed against a policy. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects such as approval workflow or potential side effects.

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 a single sentence, directly states the action, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 has seven parameters and no output schema, the one-sentence description is minimal but adequate for a straightforward mutation. It does not describe the response format or post-submission process, which would be useful for an agent to know.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all seven parameters, so the description's mention of 'policy' adds little semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Files' and identifies the resource 'time-off request' with the qualifier 'against a policy', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing or approving requests.

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 the use case of creating a time-off request but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clockify_list_time_off_requests or clockify_submit_approval. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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