draft_absence

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 does state the output (a confirmation phrase), but it does not disclose whether drafting persists state, whether it is reversible, or whether any side effects occur before submission.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately adds the key behavioral detail about the returned confirmation phrase.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It identifies the tool's role and output but leaves required inputs, valid absence types, and draft state semantics unexplained.

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%, and the description provides no guidance about the 9 parameters, including the two required ones (absence_type and reason). The agent is left to infer what values are valid and how parameters like date, student, and absence_type relate to the draft.

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 ('Draft an absence') and clarifies its distinct role by noting it returns the confirmation phrase required for submit_absence. This clearly separates it from siblings like submit_absence and draft_cancel_absence.

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 phrase 'required for submit_absence' implies this tool is a prerequisite step before submitting an absence, providing useful sequencing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like draft_cancel_absence or list_absence_options.

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