휴가 신청 상신

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the crucial non-obvious consequence — the request is delivered directly to the approver and therefore needs explicit user consent — which the annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying whether a submitted request can be withdrawn or what happens if the token has expired or was already consumed.

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 short sentences with no filler. The mechanics come first and the consent precondition second, which is the right order for an irreversible action.

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 one-parameter destructive commit tool with no output schema, the definition gives an agent everything needed to gate the call correctly. Only minor gaps remain: no statement of what a successful submission returns or how token expiry surfaces as an error.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the token and its origin. The description only restates that the token comes from jade_prepare_vacation, adding no detail about lifetime, single-use behavior, or failure modes for a stale token. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 pairs a specific verb (상신한다 / submits to approval line) with a specific resource (휴가 신청서 / vacation application) and names the mechanism (token from jade_prepare_vacation). This makes it immediately distinguishable from its sibling jade_prepare_vacation, which only prepares the draft.

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?

It states an explicit precondition for invocation: call only after the user has seen the preview and explicitly approved, because the document goes straight to the approver. It also names the producer of the required input, so the agent knows the prepare/commit sequence without inference.

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