request_rh_check

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, externally visible action, and the description adds the meaningful detail that a ticket is created for the data-center shift with status and correspondence tracked in that ticket. It also discloses that the link arrives by email, which is useful context beyond the schema.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The internal jira reference and email-notification detail are packed efficiently without bloating the description.

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 two-parameter action with an external human-mediated outcome, the description tells the agent what will happen, where status can be tracked, and how the link is delivered. A minor gap is that it does not state whether the API response itself contains a ticket identifier, but the overall context is sufficient.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters, id and confirm, at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, so this is the baseline case where the schema carries the weight.

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 the action: checking a server and booting it into the OS by creating a Remote Hands ticket. This distinguishes it from siblings like request_rh_power_on, request_rh_reboot, and request_rh_kvm, even without naming them.

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 purpose implies when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better fit for simpler actions. The ticket workflow context is helpful, but exclusions are left to inference.

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