tlc-portal-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It only states the action ('cancel') without describing side effects (leave balance restoration, notification triggers), reversibility, or required request states (pending vs. approved). Critical behavioral traits for a mutative operation are missing.

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 single-sentence description is appropriately front-loaded with zero redundancy. However, given the lack of annotations and behavioral detail, extreme brevity here contributes to informational gaps rather than efficient communication.

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?

For a cancellation operation (moderate business logic complexity) with zero annotations, no output schema, and mutative side effects, the description is insufficient. It omits expected outcomes, status change semantics, and balance implications that an agent needs to invoke this safely.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the 'request_id' parameter. The description adds no param-specific syntax or format details, but baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete and the description doesn't introduce ambiguity.

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 '기존 휴가 신청을 취소한다' (Cancels an existing leave request) provides a specific verb (cancel) and resource (leave request). The term '기존' (existing) clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like leave.submit_prepared_request (creating new) and leave.prepare_request (drafting), making the scope distinct.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., only cancelable states), or ownership restrictions (self vs. others). No exclusion criteria or alternative approaches are mentioned.

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