Post Instances Customers Limit Increase

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing: it does not say this submits a request for review/approval, what state the request enters, or that retries need the Idempotency-Key despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three words is technically concise but is under-specification rather than efficient writing; nothing is front-loaded because nothing is stated.

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?

A complex mutation with a nested requestBody, required limit fields, document requirements, and no output schema demands far more explanation than a three-word phrase. An agent has no basis for calling it correctly.

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 only 50% and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. It never mentions that the body requires per_transaction, daily and monthly limits, nor that supporting documents are effectively mandatory for the request to succeed.

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 phrase 'Request Limit Increase' essentially restates the tool name 'Post Instances Customers Limit Increase' without adding scope or distinguishing it from the sibling GetV1InstancesCustomersLimitIncrease. An agent cannot tell whether this submits a new request, updates one, or fetches status.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no named alternatives. The coexisting GET sibling is never mentioned, so routing between reading and creating a limit-increase request is left entirely to inference.

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