agent_request

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

The description explicitly says the agent can do ANY Evomi operation, which inherently signals broad and potentially destructive behavior. Combined with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the safety and side-effect profile is clear. The description adds context about it being conversational and capable of both action-oriented and informational tasks beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a single illustrative list of example requests. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples are varied without being padded. This is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and a broad scope.

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?

For a powerful agent tool covering every Evomi operation, the description conveys sufficient context: natural language interaction, broad capability, and representative examples. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the assistant's conversational nature, though a note about confirmation or credit consumption could have made it even stronger. Annotations fill the safety-related gaps, so the definition is reasonably complete.

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 schema already covers the single parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by providing diverse example prompts that illustrate the expected format and breadth of the message parameter, helping an agent craft valid natural language requests. It does not overburden with redundant schema repetition.

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 identifies this tool as an AI-powered conversational assistant covering ALL Evomi operations, and provides concrete examples that illustrate its scope. It distinguishes itself from the many specific sibling tools by positioning itself as the general-purpose natural language entry point, so an agent can readily tell it apart from direct operation tools.

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 gives clear usage context by stating the tool accepts any Evomi operation request and lists representative examples like creating configs, running scrapes, discovering URLs, scheduling jobs, and checking account info. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or point to alternative direct tools, but the 'ANY Evomi operation' framing makes the usage context strong enough for an agent.

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