send_support_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or expected outcomes. It only states the action and conditions, leaving the user uninformed about what happens after sending (e.g., confirmation, asynchronous processing, rate limits).

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 two sentences, with the first sentence stating the primary purpose and the second providing usage context. Every word is necessary, and the structure is front-loaded and highly concise.

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 is adequate for a simple tool with a complete schema, but it does not explain what happens after sending a support request or what the user should expect as a response. Since there is no output schema, this missing information leaves a minor gap in completeness.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but it does not need to since the schema is complete.

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 ('Send a support request') and the target ('to the VibeSharing admin'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools. The verb 'send' and resource are specific, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description provides explicit conditions for use: 'when the user has an issue you can't resolve, needs a configuration change, or wants to report a bug.' It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the 'Use this when...' phrasing gives clear context.

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