Add to your request

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds nothing beyond that, such as what happens to the request state, whether the operator is notified, or auth requirements for the follow_up_token.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and examples appended. Nothing is wasted, though it is on the thin side for a mutation 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 3-param mutation with no output schema, the essentials of what to send are covered, but gaps remain: no mention of length constraints on message, no effect of sending, and no guidance on acquiring the required follow_up_token beyond the schema hint.

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 67%: id and follow_up_token are documented as coming from describe_need, while message only carries a title. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g., message length or content expectations), so the moderate-coverage baseline of 3 fits.

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?

Clear verb (add) plus resource (message to an existing request) with concrete intent examples ('answer the operator or add details'). However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling send_message, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 examples 'to answer the operator or add details' imply the usage context, so an agent can infer when this applies. But there is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternatives like send_message or read_request.

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