add_leave

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 behavioral disclosure. It only says 'add', which implies a write operation, but does not mention validation, duplicate behavior, authorization needs, or what happens on success or failure.

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 single sentence is extremely concise, front-loaded with the action, and free of filler. However, the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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?

A 4-parameter create tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation needs more contextual coverage. The output schema may define return values, but prerequisites, date formats, leave-type vocabulary, and duplicate or overlap behavior are all absent.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. employee_id, start_date, end_date, and leave_type are only listed as names; there is no explanation of date format, employee identity requirements, allowed leave types, or value semantics.

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 identifies the action 'add', the object 'leave record', and the recipient 'for an employee'. This distinguishes it from add_employee and the list/delete siblings without ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions like employee existence, date validation, or overlapping leave handling. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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