gavaza_requests_new

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It adds the 30-day response deadline and enumerates valid `right` values, which is useful; however, it does not describe side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what is returned. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but broader behavioral disclosure is incomplete.

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 tightly scoped sentences deliver the core action, deadline, and the key parameter constraint. No filler or repetition; the enum values are cleanly separated in a code block.

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 a moderate 4-parameter create operation with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, deadline, and right-value constraint. It lacks explicit guidance on post-creation steps, but those are covered by sibling tools; overall it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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. It defines the allowed values for `right`, which is critical, but leaves `name`, `email`, and `description` without any added meaning beyond their titles. This is adequate but leaves gaps for a fully self-contained parameter explanation.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Log a data subject request') and adds a concrete deadline. Sibling tools like gavaza_requests_list and gavaza_requests_status clearly occupy different niches, so the creation intent is unambiguous.

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 by the verb 'Log' and the tool's 'new' suffix, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool vs. the list/status siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer context from names.

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