create_access_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the request requires approval before access is granted (behavioral trait). However, it lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. Given the absence of annotations, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 reasonably concise, with the main purpose stated first, followed by a usage hint and structured parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, though the rules explanation could be slightly more compact. Overall, it is well-organized and efficient.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters (4 required) and an output schema. The description covers the core workflow and the complex rules parameter, but it could mention the relationship with other access request tools (e.g., approve, cancel) to provide better context. It is functionally complete for basic use but lacks some contextual depth.

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. The description adds significant value by explaining the structure of the 'rules' parameter with actors, objects, and access fields, which goes beyond the schema's generic description. Other parameters are well-described in schema. This extra detail justifies a 4.

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 it creates a new access request for data access approval, which is specific and action-oriented. However, among many 'create_*' sibling tools, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from others like create_database, but the context of access approval provides some differentiation.

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?

It gives a pointer to use get_access_requests to check status after creation, which is helpful. But it does not specify when to use this tool versus related tools like approve_access_request, cancel_access_request, or deny_access_request. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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