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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: consent requirement ('only when your person says so'), the rule that cancel is only allowed after acceptance, and a reminder to pass expected_version for version control.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and then compactly enumerates action semantics. The fragmentary, telegraphic style is efficient, though slightly choppier than ideal.

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?

Given the mutation nature, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough behavioral and action-level context. It could be improved by explicitly stating when to use this tool versus sibling tools like answer_request.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the meaning of each action enum value in role-specific terms and clarifying that 'words' must be the person's own words, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 ('Record') and resource ('a request'), and maps out allowed actions by role. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from likely siblings such as answer_request or answer_friend_request, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives clear context: only act when the person says so, in their words, and selects an action based on whether the agent's person was asked or asked. It does not explicitly exclude or route to alternative tools, but the role-based action guidance is strong.

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