submit_absence

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the action is a submission (a write operation) and mentions 'exact confirmation,' which suggests a safety mechanism requiring the confirmation_phrase. However, it does not disclose the consequences of submission (e.g., whether it can be undone, whether it triggers notifications, or what the output signifies).

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 sentence, with no redundancy, and it is appropriately short. It states the core purpose efficiently, but it could be slightly longer to include an example of the confirmation phrase or parameter details.

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 has only two parameters and an output schema, the description is on the lighter side. It covers the basic purpose but lacks guidance on how to obtain a draft_id (e.g., via list_absences), what constitutes an 'exact confirmation,' and what the output signifies. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still provide more context around the confirmation phrase.

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 description must explain the parameters, but it does not. It mentions 'draft' and 'confirmation' indirectly, but it does not explain that draft_id identifies the draft to submit or that confirmation_phrase is the exact phrase required. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 (submit) and the resource (absence), and qualifies it as 'previously drafted' and requiring 'exact confirmation'. This distinguishes it from 'draft_absence' (creation) and 'cancel_absence' (cancellation), though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies the tool is for finalizing a draft, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'draft_cancel_absence' or 'cancel_absence'. The phrase 'after exact confirmation' gives context that a confirmation phrase is needed, but it lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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