delete_my_vacation

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

The description does not disclose any side effects or prerequisites. It is a destructive operation (delete) but does not warn about irreversibility or potential cascading effects (e.g., impacting leave balances). Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is insufficiently transparent about the operation's consequences.

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 very brief and to the point, containing no unnecessary fluff. However, it could have included a few more useful details (e.g., outcome feedback) without becoming verbose, so it is efficient but not perfectly balanced.

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?

The description lacks information about return values, error cases, or required permissions. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least mention what the tool returns or how errors are signaled. It also does not state whether the absence must belong to the authenticated user, despite implying it. This leaves gaps for the agent.

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 single parameter, absence_id, is described as 'ID of the absence to delete,' which clearly identifies its role. While it lacks additional detail like whether it must be an existing ID or format examples, the basic semantic is clear and sufficient for most uses.

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 function: 'Delete a vacation/absence for the authenticated user.' It uses the specific verb 'delete' and names the resource ('vacation/absence'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_my_time_entry. The scope is also clarified with 'for the authenticated user.'

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention conditions like 'use this when the vacation is no longer needed' or contrast with deleting time entries. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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