request_action

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by specifying which actions (shred, dispose) are irreversible, and lists all actions, providing context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences: first states the purpose and lists actions, second warns about irreversibility. No fluff, front-loaded, every word earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (9 actions, nested parameters, output schema present), the description covers the main purpose and key constraints without needing to repeat schema details. It could mention action-specific parameter requirements briefly, but the schema handles that.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds practical context by listing actions and noting irreversibility, but the schema already explains each enum and the parameters object. The description's added value is moderate.

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 'Request a physical action on a package at the facility' and lists all possible actions (forward, shred, scan, etc.), making the tool's purpose specific and distinct from read-only tools like 'list_packages' or 'get_package'.

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?

The description explains the tool covers a wide range of physical actions and mentions irreversible ones, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like 'request_scan' or other action-specific tools. Usage is implied rather than explicitly compared.

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