apply_leave

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a write operation but doesn't disclose whether balance is validated, overlapping leave is prevented, or an approval workflow exists. It only mentions a return status message.

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 short and front-loaded with the action statement. The parameter list is concise and adds no fluff, though it omits substantive detail that would improve usefulness.

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 2-param tool, the description is incomplete given the sibling context. It lacks domain context such as leave types, date validation, approval process, or constraints. The presence of sibling tools about leave balance and history suggests more context is needed to avoid misuse.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The param lines only restate the schema property names ('emp_id' as 'Employee ID', 'leave_dates' as 'List of leave dates') without adding format, constraints, or examples. Minimal value added.

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 'Apply for leave for an employee' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from read-only sibling tools like get_leave_history and get_employee_leave_balance.

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 such as checking leave balance or when to prefer get_employee_leave_balance.

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