refuse_leave_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Refuse a leave request' and fails to mention side effects, status changes, authorization requirements, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. The description is a bare action phrase with zero behavioral detail.

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 short phrase, which makes it concise in length. However, it is under-specified and merely restates the tool name, so it does not 'earn its place'. It lacks any informative content, making it not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool is a mutation action (refusing a leave request) with no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters. The description only states the action and provides no context about the workflow, effect on the request, or expected inputs/outputs. It is inadequate for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

The description adds no meaning to the parameters. The input schema provides a description for 'motif' (reason for refusal) but none for 'id'. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description should compensate by clarifying what 'id' refers to (e.g., the leave request ID), but it does not.

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 'Refuser une demande de congé' is a direct French translation of the tool name 'refuse_leave_request'. It restates the name without adding any additional context or differentiating from sibling tools like 'approve_leave_request'. While it does use a specific verb and resource, it is essentially a tautology.

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 such as 'approve_leave_request'. It merely states the action without any context on prerequisites, workflow position, or conditions for refusal.

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