Create Outpass

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the hard precondition, the refusal-without-network behavior, and the preview-first workflow. It stops short of stating auth requirements, whether repeat calls create duplicate passes, or rate limiting, so it is strong but not complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the gate and the corrective workflow, in three tight sentences with no filler. Minor deduction for the 'HARDC GATE' typo and slightly shouty phrasing that costs polish rather than length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the critical precondition is thoroughly covered. The one gap is that required parameters are reported as zero while the form genuinely needs date/time and a description, which the description only hints at for the reason field.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, and the description adds meaning only for 'confirmed' (strict literal true), which the schema also states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (file) and resource (outpass request) and even names the endpoint, POST /api/chc/request/v2. It clearly distinguishes itself from preview_outpass, the read-only sibling, so an agent can route between them 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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: run preview_outpass with the SAME params first, review the payload, then call this with confirmed=true. It also states the exclusion condition (if confirmed is not literally true, the tool refuses), leaving nothing to inference.

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