asset_requests

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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds important context: assets must have the 'requestable' flag, and cancel removes a pending request. It also discloses the limitation that admin functions have no API endpoints. This adds meaningful behavioral detail.

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 well-structured with an overview, clear bullet points for operations, a relevant note about web UI, and a returns line. It's appropriately sized and every sentence contributes useful information, though the returns line is slightly generic when an output schema exists.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (action enum, optional request_data), the description covers the main use cases and constraints. It doesn't detail edge cases or error behavior, but the output schema and annotations fill some gaps. It's complete enough for most agents to use 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 schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the 'request' and 'cancel' actions do, and that request_data is for the request action, which enriches the schema's enum and object descriptions.

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 states the tool manages asset checkout requests, with specific operations 'request' and 'cancel'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that administrative functions (viewing queue, approving/denying) are not available via API, so the scope is well-defined.

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 says users can request checkout and cancel pending requests, and clarifies that viewing/approving requests is only via the web UI. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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