Draft a cancellation for an existing absence and receive the confirmation phrase required to submit the cancellation.
Draft cancellation of an existing absence and return the required confirmation phrase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No | ||
| absence_id | Yes | ||
| customer_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It reveals the key behaviors: it drafts rather than cancels, and returns a confirmation phrase. However, it omits details like side effects (or their absence), error conditions, or authentication requirements. The word 'draft' implies non-destructive, but it's not explicit.
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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It efficiently states the action and outcome, making it easy to scan. There is no redundant phrasing or 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?
Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description is insufficient for a tool with four parameters and no annotations. It fails to explain parameter semantics, does not outline the cancellation workflow with sibling tools, and omits any usage context. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional information.
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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description fails to mention any of the four parameters (absence_id, from_date, to_date, customer_id) or their purpose, so it adds zero value beyond the schema's bare type declarations. An agent has to guess the meaning and usage of each parameter.
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 ('Draft cancellation'), the resource ('existing absence'), and the output ('return the required confirmation phrase'). It differentiates from 'cancel_absence' (which likely performs the cancellation) and 'draft_absence' (which drafts a new absence) by focusing on the cancellation draft flow.
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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is a prerequisite for 'cancel_absence' or that the confirmation phrase must be used there. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.