update_leave_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'admins only' and that 'name is required', but does not disclose whether the update is partial or requires full replacement, or any side effects. Behavioral details are insufficient.

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 highly concise at one sentence, front-loading the verb, resource, and access constraint. It uses backticks for 'name', but overall format is clean. Could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, update behavior (partial vs full), error conditions, or how optional parameters work. The tool is under-documented for an agent to use reliably.

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%, so the description should add meaning. However, it only repeats that 'name is required' (already in schema) and provides no explanation for the other 10 parameters, such as 'icon', 'color', or 'deducted'. Parameter semantics are almost entirely absent.

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 ('Update'), the resource ('existing leave type'), and specifies an access constraint ('admins only'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_leave_type' and 'delete_leave_type'.

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 mentions 'admins only' to indicate the user role, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is clear, but context for decision-making is minimal.

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