calligraphy_request_ip_whitelist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'Request' plus 'Support' correctly signals this is a human-reviewed submission rather than an instant grant, and the daily-limit framing shows the effect is a persistent quota change; however, turnaround time, approval criteria, whether duplicate requests are deduplicated, and what the caller receives back are all unstated.

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 the action first and qualifying detail second; the parenthetical range earns its place by calibrating the limit parameter. Nothing is redundant, though the sentence is dense enough that a second short clause on outcome would still fit without bloat.

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 five-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers who and why but not what happens next. An agent knows when to call it, but must guess at the resulting artifact (ticket ID? approval email? immediate limit change) before deciding whether to wait on it or log the submission.

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 60%, and the description supplies context for the two undocumented parameters: client_ip is implicitly the 'corporate NAT IP' and requested_daily_limit is bounded by the example range 25–100 compiles/day, which is useful since the schema default of 25 gives no scale. It stops short of explaining what the default 127.0.0.1 client_ip means or how organization_name interacts with customer_email.

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 names a specific action (submit a Support Whitelist Request) and enumerates the exact audiences it serves: engineering teams, corporate NAT IPs, and PCB layout agencies. It never explicitly contrasts this with siblings like calligraphy_compile_board or calligraphy_route_pcb, so the agent must infer that this is the escalation path when normal limits are insufficient.

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?

Usage is implied through the trigger condition 'needs higher daily compilation write limits (e.g. 25–100 compiles/day)', which tells the agent when a request is warranted. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. 'use calligraphy_compile_board for normal-limit compiles'), leaving the boundary to the agent.

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