hr_absence_cancel

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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it explains that cancellation is append-only and the row is never deleted, clarifying the non-destructive nature despite the 'cancel' label, and it states the required permission (hr.manage). It does not document error cases or return behavior, but the annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action, the non-destructive implementation detail, and the permission requirement efficiently.

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 simple cancellation tool with no output schema and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description covers the key behavior and authorization requirement. The main gap is the lack of any parameter guidance, particularly for idempotencyKey and workspaceId, which the empty schema leaves fully unexplained.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for three required parameters (workspaceId, absenceId, idempotencyKey), and the description does not mention any of them. Only 'absenceId' is indirectly implied by the word 'absence', leaving workspace scoping and idempotency key semantics entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('an absence'), so an agent can tell it is a cancellation tool distinct from hr_absence_record or hr_absence_list. It does not explicitly name the sibling or differentiate further, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 when to use it (cancelling an existing absence), but does not state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as recording or listing absences. The 'Requires hr.manage' clause is a prerequisite, not usage guidance relative to siblings.

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