Create RFI Reply

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

The description mentions the return behavior ('returns the created object on success (HTTP 201)') and lists required parameters, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It does not add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations already imply, and lacks details on side effects or auth requirements.

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 roughly four sentences with some redundancy ('Creates a new RFI records' twice). It front-loads the purpose but could be more concise and avoid repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides the HTTP status code for success but lacks details on the response structure, error conditions, or required permissions. For a create tool with a complex nested parameter (reply), more guidance would be helpful.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the required parameters but adds no extra meaning about the 'reply' object structure or 'attachments' usage beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool 'Creates a reply for a specified RFI' using a specific verb and resource. However, it contains a confusing phrase 'create a new RFI records' that seems like a copy-paste error, slightly detracting from clarity. It distinguishes from siblings like create_rfi and update_rfi_reply.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_rfi_reply or show_rfi_reply. It lists required parameters but not prerequisites or context. The phrase 'Use this to create a new RFI records' is misleading.

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