agent_request_nickname

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key rate limit and the approval requirement, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether the request is asynchronous, what happens on rejection, or any auth requirements, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and including a constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior for a simple request tool: the action, approval requirement, and rate limit. An output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented there. It lacks some context about the approval workflow but is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, display_name, is not explained in the description beyond the tool name; no format, length, or examples are given. This is insufficient for single-parameter tools where clarity is crucial.

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 the action ('request') and the resource ('owner-approved display nickname'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like agent_update_profile. The phrase 'at most once per 24 hours' further specifies its scope, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (to request a nickname requiring owner approval) and includes a constraint (max once per day), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings like agent_update_profile are not referenced as alternatives.

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