direct_attendance_future_excuse

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Submit', indicating a write operation, but gives no information about side effects, whether an existing excuse is replaced, whether the submission is reversible, or what response/confirmation the caller can 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?

The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is easy to parse, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral context.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage. The description does not explain the 'avízo' concept, what happens after submission, how to handle duplicate future excuses, or any constraints such as lead time or permission requirements.

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?

Only 'excuse' has a schema description, so coverage is 33%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'a student' and 'a specific lesson', which weakly maps to student_id and lesson_id, but it adds no detail about where those IDs come from or what format they must follow.

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 names both the resource ('future absence notice') and the target ('for a specific lesson'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling direct_attendance_current_excuse by emphasizing 'future'. However, the relationship to direct_attendance_record or the broader attendance workflow is not clarified.

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 phrase 'future absence notice' implies the tool is for upcoming absences, and 'for a specific lesson' narrows the context. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of direct_attendance_current_excuse or direct_attendance_record, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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