set_leave_defaults

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 does disclose that the tool writes config and that confirmed must be true for the write to happen. This is useful but minimal; it does not mention potential side effects, irreversible changes, permissions required, or return value behavior. With no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure.

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 two concise sentences that pack a clear purpose and a key requirement with no filler. It front-loads the main action, then adds the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 three parameters (one required) and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'notification_attendees' or 'subject' mean, nor does it describe any scenarios or expected outcomes beyond 'persist defaults'. Even though an output schema exists, the description leaves the agent with insufficient context to know what values to provide and why. It needs to elaborate on parameter semantics and usage context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide context for the 'confirmed' parameter by stating it must be true and why, adding meaning beyond the boolean type. However, it gives no explanation for 'subject' or 'notification_attendees', which are otherwise undocumented. This is partial coverage, not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Persist leave-calendar defaults', which conveys a specific verb and resource. It explicitly notes that it writes config, which distinguishes it from reading operations like get_leave_defaults. However, it does not name any sibling tool or contrast itself beyond that, so it stops short of a full 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 gives a concrete usage requirement: 'Requires confirmed=true', which tells the agent that this parameter must be set. It also explains why (because it writes config), which implies the tool is for writing default settings rather than reading. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity about selection among siblings.

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