Create a request through the experimental write API.
Requires WDTK_API_KEY in the server environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| external_url | Yes | ||
| external_user_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide openWorldHint and destructiveHint. The description adds the requirement for WDTK_API_KEY and the experimental API status, which is useful additional context. However, it does not disclose further behavioral details such as side effects, idempotency, or error handling, leaving some gaps beyond what annotations already cover.
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 two short sentences that immediately state the operation and a key prerequisite. It is front-loaded, free of redundancy, and each sentence contributes meaningful information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool with four required, undocumented parameters and an experimental write API, this description is too sparse. It omits parameter meanings, the domain concept of 'request', and any guidance on how the destructiveHint annotation applies. Even with an output schema, the input side remains largely unexplained, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 four required parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any of them. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, forcing the agent to infer meaning solely from parameter names like 'title', 'body', 'external_user_name', and 'external_url'.
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 clearly states 'Create a request' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like update_request_state and get_request_detail by being the only create operation. The mention of 'experimental write API' further clarifies it is a write action.
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 creating requests and notes the need for WDTK_API_KEY and the experimental nature, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but get_user_feed_items and get_user_requests both surface user activity, and get_request_feed_items vs get_request_detail could be confused. Descriptions help differentiate them, but the overlap creates minor ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (build_, create_, get_, list_, search_, update_). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools are well-scoped for the domain, covering read, search, write, and feed operations without bloat. The prompts-related tools are ancillary but not excessive.
Core workflows are covered: authority lookup, request search/detail, user requests, creation, and state updates. Missing user detail or direct authority request list can be worked around with existing search and feed tools.