create_absence_registration

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 discloses the default full-day registration and the optional Hours parameter, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions required, whether changes are reversible, or what success/failure responses look like. For a write operation without annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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?

Three concise sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds necessary information: what it does, how to get a required parameter, and the default behavior. Perfectly sized.

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 relatively simple create operation with all parameters described in schema and clear instructions on the key one, the description covers essential execution details. It does not mention output or errors, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward. It could slightly improve by distinguishing from create_time_registration, but that is minor.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that Hours is for partial days and that AbsenceCodeID should come from search_absence_codes, which is not in the schema. This extra context helps agents use the parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create an absence registration') and gives concrete examples (vacation, sick leave). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_time_registration, and the reference to search_absence_codes preempts a common confusion.

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 explicitly instructs to use search_absence_codes to find the AbsenceCodeID, and explains the default full-day behavior with the Hours override. This gives clear, actionable guidance on when and how to invoke the tool as well as a pointer to an alternative for finding the code.

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