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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the agent knows the tool is potentially destructive and the schema may not be closed. The description adds valuable context by stating that WDTK_API_KEY is required in the server environment and that the API is experimental, which is beyond what annotations convey. This enhances the agent's understanding of operational constraints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to clarity, and the structure is easy to parse for an agent.

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 write tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: it is experimental, requires an API key, and updates a specific aspect of a request. It does not describe side effects or reversibility, but the annotations already warn of destructiveness, and the output schema handles return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does partially by clarifying that 'state' refers to 'user-assessed state,' which adds meaning beyond the parameter name. However, it does not enumerate valid state values or explain request_id semantics beyond the obvious name. Given only two parameters, this is sufficient but not exceptional.

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 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'user-assessed state of a request,' which clearly states what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling read tools and even from create_request_record, as it focuses on updating an existing request's state rather than creating a new record.

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 that this tool is for modifying an existing request's state, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like create_request_record. It also does not provide any exclusions, prerequisites beyond the API key, or comparison to other write tools. The mention of 'experimental write API' gives some context but no direct usage guidance.

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