add_my_vacation

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 disclosing side effects. It only states 'Add a vacation' without mentioning that it creates a record, whether it is idempotent, any conflict handling, or potential impact on other data. This lacks sufficient behavioral detail.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args section listing parameters. No redundant or irrelevant information is present, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple add operation, the description provides the essential action and arguments. However, given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it leaves out details such as what the tool returns (e.g., success status, created vacation object) and how errors are communicated. It is minimally adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 includes basic meaning for both parameters ('Start date' and 'End date') and specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format, which is helpful. However, it omits constraints such as whether the end date must be after the start date, timezone handling, or if dates are inclusive/exclusive. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 action ('Add a vacation') and the target ('for the authenticated user'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_my_time_entries or start_my_clock, making the intent immediately obvious.

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 a clear directive for when to use the tool (to add a vacation), but does not explicitly mention any alternative to avoid. Given there is no direct alternative among siblings (e.g., no 'add_my_time_entry' is a different resource), the guidance is adequate though not deeply explicit.

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