Request a feature

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

The annotations provide a baseline (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false) but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: submitting a request to the Hermoso team, requiring the user's goal rather than just a feature name, and being 'Free, no credits.' No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage signals, then guidance on writing the request, then the cost implication. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or title.

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 simple two-parameter request tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, what to include in the request, and the fact that it costs nothing. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 100%, so both 'summary' and 'details' are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the important semantic of 'details' by explaining what the user was trying to achieve rather than just a feature name, but it does not go far beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Ask the Hermoso team for a capability that doesn't exist yet') with a clear resource and scope. It identifies the exact kinds of missing capabilities (unsupported platform, missing model, export format, unavailable tool), making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool is for and distinguish it from operational siblings like report_bug or enable_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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'when you need something Hermoso genuinely can't do' and gives concrete examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'for bugs use report_bug'), but the usage context is clear enough that an agent can route to this tool confidently.

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