apply_leave

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The example implies the tool creates or submits leave, which signals a write operation, but no details are given about side effects, required permissions, approval flows, or whether overlapping leave is handled. This is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 an example, which is perfectly concise. Every element earns its place: the verb, the object, the parameter hint, and the format example. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and one parameter's format but leaves 'employee_id' largely unexplained and omits any indication of return values, error handling, or behavioral caveats. It is complete enough for a straightforward action but not robust.

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% (parameters have no descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. The description adds meaning by showing the expected date format via example and implies the 'leave_dates' array structure. However, 'employee_id' is not elaborated beyond the schema title, missing an opportunity to explain its format or source.

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 tool's purpose: applying leave for specific dates, with a concrete example of the date format. It uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Apply leave') and distinguishes its action from the sibling tools (get_leave_balance, get_leave_history) which are read-only queries.

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 provides a concrete usage example (the array of dates) but gives no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The example implies usage context but lacks explicit direction.

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