Create RFI

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the record is created in Draft status, attributed to the signed-in user, dated now, and no notification is dispatched — none of which the readOnly/destructive/openWorld hints convey. It does not address what happens on repeat calls, which matters given idempotentHint=false, leaving a small gap.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no wasted filler, and the critical 'not sent to anyone' caveat is prominent. There is mild redundancy between the opening sentence and the second sentence's field enumeration.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly closes the loop with 'Returns the saved RFI,' and it covers status, attribution, and notification behavior. It omits failure modes (e.g., an invalid project_id) but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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% and five of six properties already carry descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the field set (title, question, area, plan sheet, reply-by date) in prose without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides — 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a Contractor Foreman RFI ... on a project') plus the resulting status ('Draft'), which distinguishes it from get_rfi/list_rfis and from the many other create_* siblings. An agent can tell exactly what is produced without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly bounds the tool's role: 'It is not sent to anyone. Submitting it to the architect or owner stays a step in the app,' which tells the agent when this tool suffices and when a further app-side action is needed. It doesn't name a sibling alternative (none exists for send), so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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