create_user_request

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

With no annotations, the description is the only place to learn that the tool is gated behind a Proof account or session, and it explains how to satisfy that gate. It also clearly frames the operation as creating a request rather than reading data. It does not disclose return shape or lifecycle behavior, but the auth disclosure is a substantial behavioral trait.

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 two purposeful sentences: one for the core purpose and one for the access requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler.

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?

This is a state-changing creation tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not say what the call returns, how the other user is selected or notified, or how the request relates to sibling request-lifecycle tools. The access note is useful, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

All 10 parameters already have descriptions in the schema, so the description adds little parameter-level value. It reuses the notion of 'verified assets' from the assets parameter, but does not explain defaults, formats, or interactions beyond 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 first sentence names a concrete action and outcome: create a new verification request that asks another user to share verified assets. It is clear, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling create_verification_request, whose name matches the described resource exactly.

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 ACCESS note gives a concrete prerequisite and remediation path (set PROOF_API_KEY, restart, or start_login and retry), which is helpful for invoking the tool. It never says when to choose this tool over create_verification_request or other request-creation siblings, so selection guidance is mostly inferred from the name and first sentence.

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