Create service request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what the call actually produces (presumably a ticket/request record), whether retries create duplicates, or how custom_fields and child_items affect 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a 6-parameter mutation tool.

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 non-idempotent, open-world write operation, and the description gives no indication of the resulting object or the effect of the optional bundling and custom-field parameters. The output schema and full param coverage help, but a one-line description leaves an agent without the operational context needed to invoke this confidently.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description only echoes 'catalog item', which loosely maps to display_id, and adds no semantics for quantity, requested_for, child_items, or custom_fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('place a service request for a catalog item'), which is more informative than the title alone. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from near-siblings like create_ticket or create_child_ticket, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_ticket, no stated prerequisites (e.g., that display_id must come from list_service_items/search_service_items), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'catalog item'.

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