create_rhr_request

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds no side-effect disclosure such as ticket creation consequences, execution by datacenter staff, or post-submission behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 short, purposeful sentences: purpose, critical comment guidance, and usage condition. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 creation request with four schema-documented parameters, the description supplies the needed purpose, when-to-use condition, and content expectations. It does not describe what happens after the request is created, but that is not essential for invoking it correctly.

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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description only reinforces that the comment should be detailed, which adds no meaning beyond what schema.description already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Создать заявку на удалённые работы' and clarifies the exact scope as datacenter duty-shift work that cannot be performed remotely. It is distinguishable from sibling request-management tools like list_rhr_requests, add_rhr_comment, and discard_rhr_request because it explicitly frames this as creating a new request via rhr/add.

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 final sentence gives an explicit condition: 'Использовать, только если модуль удалённого управления сервером недоступен/не работает.' This tells the agent exactly when this tool should be selected over direct remote management alternatives.

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