portal_excuse_absence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('submit') and retroactive nature, but not what happens as a result, whether changes can be reversed, what permissions are needed, or what response/confirmation the agent should expect.

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 concise sentence that states the core purpose front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it easy for an agent to consume 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks guidance on expected outcomes, side effects, or how it relates to portal_report_absence/portal_attendance, leaving an agent to infer important operational context.

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%, so the structured schema already fully documents both parameters and their date format. The description adds only minor context ('specific dates') and does not substantially enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and a specific resource ('retroactive excuse for absences on specific dates'), clearly articulating the tool's core function. The term 'retroactive' also helps distinguish it from sibling portal_report_absence, even though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 implies the tool is for retroactive excuses but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like portal_report_absence or portal_attendance. It does not state exclusions or conditions that would help an agent pick between sibling tools.

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