request_pilot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well on the safety-relevant part: 'Sends nothing itself', the draft is for the human owner to review and send, and nothing is transmitted until Trust Engine AI replies. It does not describe what the draft contains when optional inputs are omitted, nor any failure modes if the mailto link cannot be built.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the 'Use when' trigger, then the artifact produced, then the safety caveat. Dense but no wasted clauses; the parenthetical listing subject/body/mailto link earns its place by describing the output.

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 low-risk drafting tool whose output schema exists, the description covers the trigger, the artifact, the no-send guarantee, and the downstream sequencing. The one thing an agent still cannot infer is what each of the six inputs means, which is a real but narrower gap than the overall workflow coverage.

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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage means both the schema and the description are silent on meaning, so the description should compensate and does not name a single parameter (notes, models, company, use_case, task_count, monthly_bill_usd). The mention of subject and body only implies that the parameters are rendered into the draft, which is weak evidence. This is the definition's largest gap.

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 verb and artifact: it drafts a free pilot request email (subject, body, mailto link) addressed to hello@agenttrustapi.com. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling prepare_pilot_tasks by explaining the sequencing between them, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 opening clause gives explicit triggers: when the owner wants an independent test of a cheaper model, or a re-test before a retirement. It also states the workflow condition that the task file goes only after Trust Engine AI replies, which implicitly points at prepare_pilot_tasks. It does not state when-not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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