create_requirement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool creates a requirement, which implies a write operation, but does not describe side effects, permission requirements, or potential errors. No additional behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that avoids verbosity. It is efficient and to the point, though it could include more guidance without becoming wordy. It scores well for conciseness but is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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?

This is a create operation with 8 parameters, 5 required, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is far too terse to be complete. It lacks information about required fields beyond the raw schema, the meaning of optional fields, prerequisites, or expected outcomes. Comparable to the 'update_drive' example, this mutation tool needs significantly more context.

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 only 25%, with just docId and reqSpecId having descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the 75% of undocumented parameters. It mentions the containing specification but not the fields or their intended values.

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 action (create), the resource (requirement), and the container (requirement specification), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_requirement_specification and list_requirements. The parenthetical API method reference (tl.createRequirement) adds concrete grounding.

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 guidance is given on when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as create_requirement_specification. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing requirement specification) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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