Submit a freee personal application

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: user-authorization requirements, sequential processing without per-item confirmation, the exact behavior of work_time_action=delete, and a strong 'never retry an unknown write' safety rule. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits full side-effect or response details.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes a distinct actionable constraint: authorization and preview requirement, sequential processing, and the delete-specific behavior plus retry prohibition.

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 a complex 13-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: matching preview, authorization, sequential processing, the delete variant, and a no-retry rule. Minor gaps remain: overtime is not mentioned and no response format is indicated.

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 92%, so the schema already documents individual parameters well and the baseline is 3. The description only incidentally reinforces the work_time_action=delete behavior and retry policy; it does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 action: submit one real application after its matching preview, distinguishing it from preparation or cancellation workflows. However, it names only 'leave or work-time correction' while the schema also allows 'overtime', so it is not fully aligned with the accepted kinds.

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?

It gives clear preconditions: use only after the matching preview and only when the exact action or an active scoped business policy is user-authorized. It also states that an authorized date set may be processed sequentially without per-item confirmation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling commit tools like cancel/withdraw, but 'matching preview' identifies the correct workflow.

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