request_ugc_permission

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses that a DM is sent via platform API and that templates are in English or Indonesian, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it creates a record, triggers notifications), idempotency, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a tool that performs a write action, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences with minimal waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the language/template detail is useful. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the mechanism, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks context on platform limitations, how permissions are verified, and what happens after permission is granted. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without external knowledge about the parameters and the API flow.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (content_url, platform, message). It doesn't even mention them, so an agent has no idea what values to pass or what the message default implies. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 names a specific action ('Request permission from a UGC creator to repost their content') and distinguishes it from siblings like curate_ugc and track_ugc through the explicit 'repost permission' framing. However, it does not explicitly call out which sibling it is not, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in top-tier examples. The verb and resource are clear.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context like 'when you need to repost UGC', or any explicit exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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