Preview a freee personal application

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

The description adds real behavioral substance beyond the annotations: validation without submission, a binding fingerprint, and the clarification that delete previews a correction request rather than raw record deletion. This aligns with the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them. It does not cover error cases or fingerprint lifecycle, but those are not core to the tool's safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, scope, and outputs; the second handles the non-obvious delete special case. Nothing in the description repeats the schema or annotations unnecessarily.

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 there is no output schema, the description does explain the primary return content: route, exact values, and a binding fingerprint. Conditional parameter rules and the options-tool-first guidance live in the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage. It stops just short of explicitly telling the agent to pass the fingerprint to commit_create, leaving that to inference.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. It still adds meaning for work_time_action=delete by stressing the exact Japanese label and emphasizing that this is a correction-request preview, not a direct deletion. That semantic clarification is useful, though modest on top of an already fully documented 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 opens with a specific action — fill and validate a leave or work-time correction form without submitting — and names concrete outputs: route, exact values, and a binding fingerprint. This clearly distinguishes prepare_create from commit_create and other application tools. The only slight omission is that overtime is not mentioned, but the schema explicitly handles that.

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 clearly frames the tool as a preview/no-submit step and gives a conditional rule for work_time_action=delete. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as commit_create or the options tool, nor states 'use this before committing' or 'use that to actually submit.' The usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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