libredesk_request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by flagging 'DESTRUCTIVE for DELETE: needs confirm' and tying confirm to prior user agreement — consistent, additive context. It also discloses that catalog with a domain returns field metadata, which is a behavioral detail not in the annotations. It says nothing about auth/profile selection or response shape, keeping it off a 5.

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 framing sentence followed by a two-bullet action list; the escape-hatch purpose and the catalog-first workflow are both front-loaded with no filler. Every line maps to something an agent must decide.

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 an 8-parameter, destructive, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation and the delete guardrail but leaves the response shape entirely unexplained — an agent calling catalog or call has no idea what comes back. The profile parameter and its effect on auth are also unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for a raw-API tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description goes further by binding parameters to actions — method/path/confirm belong to call, domain belongs to catalog and additionally expands the returned field list. That action-scoping is genuine meaning beyond the flat schema, though it never touches body, query, or profile.

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 names the resource precisely ('raw API access') and enumerates the two verbs it supports (call, catalog), which is enough for an agent to understand this is an escape hatch for endpoints not covered by the dedicated siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, relying on the phrase 'what other tools lack' to carry the distinction.

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?

'find the endpoint with catalog first' gives an explicit two-step workflow (discover, then call), and 'for what other tools lack' acts as a real exclusion telling the agent to prefer the dedicated tools. It does not say what to do when catalog returns nothing for a domain, but the core routing guidance is present.

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