Reject Leave Request

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

Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safe, idempotent operation. Description adds 'TRUST AREA — HR DECISION' and reason compliance context, but no additional behavioral details beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences plus bilingual repetition, front-loaded with purpose. The Spanish translation is redundant but does not significantly bloat. Could be slightly more concise but effective.

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 simple rejection tool with two params and existing output schema, description adequately covers purpose and key constraint. No need to detail output as schema handles it.

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 covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions. Description adds semantic value by explaining reason is mandatory for 'transparency and labor-law compliance' and flags as trust area, enhancing parameter meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'Reject a pending leave request with a required reason,' specifying the verb, resource, and constraint. Distinct from sibling tools like leave_approve and leave_cancel.

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?

Provides context for rejection (pending leave request) and reason requirement, implicitly distinguishing from approval/cancellation. Lacks explicit when-not guidance but context is clear.

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