İtiraz Talebi Oluştur

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the request is sent to GIB, if it can be reversed), or any required authentication or state (e.g., document must be signed).

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it is slightly too terse; it could include brief usage notes without losing conciseness.

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?

For a creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, required conditions (e.g., document must be signed), or differentiate from cancellation requests. The undocumented 'explanation' parameter is not addressed.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-level information. The undocumented 'explanation' parameter would benefit from clarification, but baseline is 3 due to schema coverage.

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 'Creates an objection request for a signed document' with a specific verb ('oluşturur') and resource ('itiraz talebi'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like gib_cancellation_request, which handles cancellations.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gib_cancellation_request). There is no mention of prerequisites, excluded cases, or best practices.

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