passgage_update_leave

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

The description is minimal and provides no behavioral details beyond the verb 'update'. With no annotations present, the description should disclose side effects, required permissions, or update semantics (partial vs full). It only implies the leave already exists, but that's insufficient.

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, which is efficient and front-loaded, but it lacks substance. It is not overly verbose, yet it under-specifies the tool's behavior and appropriate usage.

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?

For a tool with an open-ended 'data' object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what fields are updatable or how the update behaves, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool confidently.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents id and data. The description adds no extra meaning about how to construct the data object or any constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Update an existing leave' which is a clear verb-resource pair. It distinguishes the update operation from create/delete, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like update_leave_rule or update_leave_type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as the leave needing to exist, nor does it contrast with create or delete operations.

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