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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and it does so thoroughly: atomic participant addition, delivery stored before sending, offline recipients resume later, private fields (objective, authorization, origin) not transmitted, and only text plus request ID shared. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Eight short sentences each carry a distinct operational or privacy constraint, with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant elaboration. Despite the technical content, it remains scannable and every sentence earns its place.

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 14-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the major operational constraints but does not state the return contract or what happens when limits/failures occur (e.g., what the caller receives, or behavior at eight active requests). These are notable gaps, but the rest of the context is strong enough to make the tool safely invocable.

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 93%, so the schema already defines most parameters; the description adds value beyond it by clarifying authorization must be pre-existing, by stating which private fields are not sent, and by tying idempotency_key to retry behavior. This is a modest but real increment over the input schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: start a durable private outbound commitment and send an explicit request to saved contacts. This clearly separates creation from sibling tools like request_retry, request_followup, request_get, and request_update by emphasizing the initial creation and outbound send.

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 concrete invocation constraints: existing user authorization is required, maximum eight active requests, standard rooms only, and retry with identical input/key. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead' pointer to alternatives, but the create-versus-follow-up framing and constraints make when-to-use reasonably clear.

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