Review leave application

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

The description explains the need for confirm=true to actually perform writes and the availability of dryRun for preview. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 description covers the core action and key parameters (confirm/dryRun) but omits details about the optional note parameter, return values (no output schema), or any prerequisites. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only explains confirm and dryRun parameters. The other five parameters (applicationId, stage, decision, actorId, note) are not described. Given the low coverage, the description should provide more parameter guidance.

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 the action (approve or decline), the resource (leave application), and the specific stages (admin or management). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like limu_review_payment_voucher by specifying the resource.

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 clear context for using confirm and dryRun parameters. It explains when to use each, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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