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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), the description discloses the operator-notification side effect, the review-only outcome ('no capacity is granted, target executed or delivery guaranteed'), and an idempotency protocol (persist operationKey and exact input before dispatch, reuse after uncertainty). This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the safety constraint and idempotency guidance follow logically. Slightly packed with semicolon-joined clauses, but every clause 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the side effect, the non-guarantee of the outcome, and idempotent retry behavior, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. It is only weakened by the total absence of parameter-level detail.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains operationKey's role as a persisted idempotency key and implicitly maps the resource enum ('runs', 'services', 'storage'), but leaves requestedCapacity (units?), message, replyTo, projectId and environmentId entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Save a scoped request for more shared runs, synthetic Tools or storage capacity and notify the configured operator.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-side siblings like firedrill_capacity_requests, but it never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It provides an affirmative trigger ('Requires user intent') and concrete exclusions ('do not include credentials or simulation contents'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when a different sibling should be chosen instead, so it lacks explicit routing.

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