Create requester

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive write, so safety is covered. The description adds the cross-field contact requirement, which is real behavioral context the annotations cannot express. It says nothing about duplicate handling, whether the requester is auto-added to groups, or side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, action stated first, constraint second. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 17 optional parameters and a write operation, the description covers the one hard rule an agent could trip over. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it omits anything about duplicate detection, group membership side effects, or the relationship between first_name requiredness and the contact rule.

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 82%, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by stating the OR-constraint across primary_email, work_phone_number and mobile_phone_number — a cross-parameter rule JSON Schema cannot express here (only first_name is in 'required'). This is genuinely additive for a 17-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a requester'), which is unambiguous against siblings like create_agent or create_ticket. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing when a person should become a requester rather than an agent, but the resource itself is clear.

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 on when to use this versus create_agent, add_requester_to_group, or convert_requester_to_agent — all present in the sibling list. The only conditional content is a parameter constraint, not usage context.

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