Create and send a Document Request

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, and the description adds critical behavioral context: the email cannot be recalled, it goes only to the provided recipient, the Client uploads through a secure link, and a post-creation email failure returns an error naming the created request. This is exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs for a risky one-shot mutation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and irreversibility warning, then moves efficiently through confirmation workflow, recipient scope, upload behavior, and failure handling. Despite its length, every sentence carries operational weight for a destructive tool.

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 destructive, externally visible creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, safety warning, recipient scope, and failure mode. An agent has enough context to call it correctly once the user has confirmed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description reinforces some key inputs, such as showing the recipient email and documents as the Client will read them, but adds little syntax or format meaning beyond what is already in the 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 states a specific verb and resource: it creates a Document Request and emails the Client in one step. This clearly distinguishes the tool from read/download siblings like get_request and download_documents, even though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 strong invocation guidance: call when the Professional wants to ask for documents, first show the recipient, deadline, documents, and message, then call only after confirmation. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools such as request_replacement.

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