request_leave

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool submits a leave request, implying a write operation, but lacks critical details: whether it requires authentication, approval workflows, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid dates), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Minor improvements could include briefer formatting or integrating usage hints, but it remains efficient overall.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 4 parameters, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, side effects) and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for reliable agent operation.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for all parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains 'leave_type_id' with examples (e.g., annual leave), clarifies date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), and notes 'reason' as optional. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could specify ID sources (e.g., from 'get_my_leaves').

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 with a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('leave request'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_leaves' or 'get_my_attendance', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication via 'login'), exclusions (e.g., overlapping dates), or related tools like 'get_my_leaves' for checking existing requests, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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