accelo_create_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a mutation ('Create') but discloses nothing about required permissions, side effects, whether the created object is returned, or how it interacts with the request type/affiliation it references.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and the Args block is compact and scannable. There is no filler, though the parameter list format is mechanical.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return/side-effect behavior, which it omits entirely. It covers the input surface adequately but leaves the agent without enough to reason about what happens after invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does enumerate all seven parameters and mark which two are required. However, most parameter notes merely restate the field name ('Affiliation ID', 'Priority ID') and only the 'source' entry adds real value by hinting at allowed values ('email').

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new request'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read/update tools like accelo_list_requests, accelo_get_request, and accelo_update_request. It does not, however, explicitly name those alternatives or explain how it relates to them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites apply (e.g., whether a valid affiliation_id or type_id must already exist). The description is purely a parameter listing with no usage context.

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