submit_leave_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool submits a leave process and returns an application number, indicating mutation. However, it does not detail side effects, authentication requirements, error handling, or data validation behaviors beyond the basic action.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, a workflow note, and a detailed parameter list. While it is somewhat lengthy, the structured format compensates for the complexity of 16 parameters. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity and lack of output schema in the provided data, the description includes a Returns section specifying 'SubmitResult: 包含申请单号'. It also references all necessary prerequisite tools, making it a complete guide for using this tool in the leave application workflow.

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 0%, but the description's Args section provides clear, tool-specific context for each parameter, including source tool (e.g., 'from init_leave_flow') and allowed values (e.g., 'file_ids: 附件 ID 列表...无附件时为 None'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 '提交请假申请' (submit leave application) and '返回申请单号' (returns application number). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like init_leave_flow and calculate_leave_days by being the final submission step.

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 explains that all information must be gathered from other tools (user info from init_leave_flow, organization from select_organization, etc.), providing implicit workflow guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions but effectively communicates the prerequisite context.

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