passgage_create_leave

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Create a new leave') but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, data validations, return values, or consequences of creation. This is a minimal mutation description with no additional behavioral context, similar to the update_drive example that scored 2.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it essentially restates the tool name (passgage_create_leave) and adds no additional value beyond what the name already conveys. It is concise but not particularly informative, earning a middle score.

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 a nested free-form data object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what a leave is, what fields are required, what the response structure looks like, or any constraints. This is inadequate for a create operation with a non-trivial payload, similar to the update_drive example that scored 2.

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 100% (the single 'data' parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, and the schema description itself is vague ('The data for creating the leave' with additionalProperties true). While the description doesn't help, the schema coverage meets the baseline threshold.

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 'Create a new leave' clearly states the verb (create) and the resource (leave), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific resource, though it doesn't elaborate on what a 'leave' entails. This is comparable to the 'Update shared drive settings' example, which received a 4.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclude cases (e.g., when to use update_leave instead). With sibling tools like list_leaves, get_leave, update_leave, and delete_leave, the lack of usage context is a clear gap.

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