create_rhr_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this escalates to on-site humans performing physical datacenter work, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about approval flow, cost, expected turnaround, or what happens after submission.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the usage restriction follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety, full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, usage restriction and the critical comment-detail expectation. It omits the request lifecycle (approval, scheduling, notification) that would make it fully self-contained.

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 description coverage is 100% and all four parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's only param-level contribution is reinforcing that comment should be 'as much detail as possible', which largely restates the schema's 'Detailed description of the required work'.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a Remote Hands request (rhr/add)') and immediately qualifies the resource ('on-site datacenter shift work that cannot be done remotely'), which distinguishes it from request_rh_* remote power/KVM helpers and from list_rhr_requests/add_rhr_comment/discard_rhr_request. An agent can identify the tool's niche without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion: 'Use only if the remote server management module is unavailable/not working.' That is a real when-not condition that steers the agent away from misuse. It does not, however, name the specific alternative sibling (e.g. reboot_server, request_rh_power_on) to use first, so routing is left partly to inference.

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