Request Live Execution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool does not execute the mutation and that the request is approval-gated, which are the key behavioral traits. It does not detail the approval workflow or side effects of preparing the request, but the core non-execution behavior is explicit.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and boundary. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the high-level purpose is clear, but the description omits guidance on what project_plan should contain and the relationship to execute_live_request. The output schema likely covers return values, but parameter construction and workflow context are left to inference.

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 never mentions project_plan by name or structure. 'Live mutation request' weakly implies that project_plan is the content of the request, but with a single required object parameter and no schema documentation, the agent is left to infer the expected shape. This does not compensate for the missing schema coverage.

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?

States a specific action ('Prepare'), a singular object ('one approval-gated Live mutation request'), and an explicit boundary ('without executing it'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool execute_live_request.

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 phrase 'approval-gated' signals when this tool is appropriate, and 'without executing it' separates it from execution tools. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops 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.