float-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Approve' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, side effects (e.g., notifications sent), idempotency, or error conditions. It states the action but lacks operational context.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover success/failure responses, error handling, or side effects. Given the complexity of approving time-off (likely involving permissions and notifications), more context is needed for safe use.

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 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'timeoff_id' identifies the request to approve. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples, but the schema covers basics adequately.

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 ('Approve') and resource ('a pending time off request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reject-timeoff' and 'create-timeoff' by specifying approval rather than creation or rejection. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'approve' entails (e.g., status change, notifications).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., pending status), when not to use it (e.g., if already approved), or direct alternatives like 'reject-timeoff'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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