add_my_sick_day

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/network profile is known. The description adds useful domain semantics, mapping child=true to absence type 5 vs type 4 and explaining the sick-note flag, but says nothing about required permissions, behavior on overlapping existing absences, or what happens when a range spans weekends/holidays.

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?

One front-loaded summary sentence followed by a compact Args list; every line earns its place. Slight redundancy between the summary and the child parameter note, but no real waste.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description covers inputs well but omits failure modes, permission requirements, and whether booking a range creates one entry or many. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want filled before invoking.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it documents all four parameters, specifies the YYYY-MM-DD date format, and clarifies that sick_note means a doctor's certificate exists. Only the default-value behavior (both booleans default false) is left to the 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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('sick day') scoped to the authenticated user, with the range variant noted parenthetically. It is clearly distinguishable from add_my_vacation by resource, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as the alternative.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison against alternatives such as add_my_vacation or edit_my_time_entry. The agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is the correct tool for recording sickness absences.

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