create_labelling_request

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions triggering validation and trial setup, indicating side effects, but does not specify if the operation is destructive, what happens on failure, or any required preconditions. Lack of detail on mutation behavior.

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 that effectively communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. Could include more detail on usage or outcome without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, typical usage flow, or integration with other tools. Missing important context for a complex submission tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter. The schema description 'Comprehensive hierarchical clinical labelling structured data payload' is already provided. The tool description adds no additional semantic insight beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3.

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 verb (submits), the resource (Labelling Design Request payload), the destination (Appian), and the outcome (trigger validation and trial setup). It distinguishes from siblings like create_procurement_request which is for procurement, and get_appian_suppliers which is for suppliers.

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 implies the tool should be used when the request is 'completely populated' and 'multi-step,' but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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