Kasra Submit Credit Request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a mutation (submitting a new request) but does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, whether submission is irrevocable, or whether the request enters an approval workflow.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and scopes the request types. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 is enough for basic tool selection and the schema covers parameters, but for a mutating submit action with no annotations it omits workflow context such as prerequisites, side effects, or when hourly time fields are mandatory. The vague 'و ...' ending also leaves the supported types slightly open-ended.

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%, and the schema itself provides detailed parameter semantics including formats, examples, conditional requirements, and valid credit type IDs. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action—ثبت درخواست مجوز جدید (submit a new permission/credit request)—and enumerates the supported types: hourly/daily leave, mission, overtime, remote work. The action verb and 'new' clearly set it apart in action from deletion or retrieval tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the listed request types: an agent can infer it should be used to submit leave, mission, overtime, or remote-work requests. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of kasra_get_credit_types, kasra_get_submitted_requests, or kasra_delete_credit_request.

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