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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the request may notify approvers or the assignee and that it remains a request until approved. That adds useful side-effect and lifecycle context, though it does not discuss permission or rate-limit 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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with “WRITE,” and contains no wasted text. It moves cleanly from purpose to lifecycle to form-specific input guidance.

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 10-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it safely: request lifecycle, side effects, and `fields` behavior. It could say more about the response or approval implications, but annotations and schema cover most remaining details.

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 already high at 90%, so the schema carries most parameter meanings. The description adds useful conditional guidance for `fields`, explaining that field labels from the account’s request form should be used when such a form is configured.

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 and resource: “submit a new work request.” It also distinguishes the object from a work order by stating “It is not a work order until approved,” which helps separate it from sibling creation tools.

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 explains the tool’s context clearly: submitting a request for maintenance-team approval, with the result appearing in the Requests list. It does not explicitly say when to use create_work_order or approve_request instead, so the alternative-routing guidance is only implied.

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