create_appeal_request

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, which align with the 'create' action. The description adds little beyond what annotations already convey; it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or return behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence. While not overcrowded, it could be more informative without adding length. The structure is efficient but not optimized for scanability.

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, low annotation detail, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of the tool's fields, required inputs beyond the schema, or the result of creation.

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 0% with no descriptions for the 4 parameters. The description hints at 'linked to an appeal or constituent' for appeal_id and constituent_id, but does not explain ask_amount or segment_name, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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 'Create a new appeal request' which specifies the verb and resource. It also mentions it can be linked to an appeal or constituent, distinguishing it from other create tools. However, it does not define what an appeal request represents, which leaves some ambiguity.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_gift or create_note, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints.

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