create_rhr_request

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait beyond the annotations: invoking this tool triggers physical work by a data-center duty shift, which has real-world implications. It also instructs to describe the work in maximum detail in comment. Although it doesn't detail post-creation steps, annotations already cover read/write and destructive nature.

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 concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, how to fill the critical comment field, and when to use it. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no redundant 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?

The description provides enough context for correct invocation: purpose, usage condition, and key parameter detail. It doesn't explicitly describe the full consequence of creating the request (e.g., human dispatch, expected response), but combined with the schema and annotations, an agent can correctly select and use the tool.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful guidance for the comment parameter, explicitly requiring maximum detail, which goes beyond the schema's 'Подробное описание требуемых работ'. This represents a small but valuable increment.

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 ('Создать' - create), a specific resource ('заявку на удалённые работы'), and the endpoint (rhr/add). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling RHR tools by stating it is for physical data-center shift work that cannot be done remotely.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Использовать, только если модуль удалённого управления сервером недоступен/не работает'. This gives a clear condition and implies the alternative is the remote server management module, leaving no ambiguity.

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