reject_leave

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it rejects a leave request, but does not mention side effects (e.g., status change, notifications), required permissions, or whether the action is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness. While there is no fluff, the brevity leaves the agent with insufficient information.

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 tool is a mutation with a single required parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description should at least hint at success/failure outcomes, constraints (e.g., cannot reject already rejected requests), and the output format. It provides none of this, making it incomplete.

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%, so the description must clarify the single parameter 'request_id'. It does not explain what the ID represents (e.g., the leave request ID) or provide any format or source. The schema's title 'Request Id' adds minimal value, but the description adds nothing beyond the tool's purpose.

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 'Reject a leave request' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'approve_leave' and 'apply_leave' through the verb 'reject'. However, it lacks any additional context about the scope or effect.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar tools like 'approve_leave' or 'list_leave_requests'. The description does not mention prerequisites, nor does it contrast with alternatives.

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