manage_requester

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It notes mandatory fields and required IDs per action, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial or overwrite, any permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens on invalid actions. This is minimal transparency for a multi-action mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with 'Unified requester operations,' followed by a compact Args list. It is reasonably organized, but it omits many parameters and uses informal formatting (e.g., 'MANDATORY' uppercase, 'page/per_page' as one item), which slightly hurts readability and completeness.

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 tool has 24 parameters, no annotations, and multiple action modes, the description is incomplete. It does not explain filter query syntax, update field semantics, list pagination behavior, or what get_fields returns. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but invocation details for most actions remain unclear.

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 has 24 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains a few key parameters (action, requester_id, first_name, query, include_agents, group_id, page/per_page) and their role in specific actions, but leaves the majority of fields (address, language, custom_fields, department_ids, etc.) completely unexplained.

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 identifies 'requester operations' as the resource and enumerates specific actions (create, update, get, list, filter, get_fields, add_to_group), making the purpose clear. It differentiates from sibling tools like manage_requester_group by focusing on the requester entity itself, though it lacks a strong verb phrase beyond the generic 'operations.'

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 action-specific parameter requirements (e.g., 'requester_id: Required for get, update, add_to_group'), which helps with invocation. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools like manage_agent or manage_requester_group, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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