create_requisition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key constraint that the agent cannot approve its own requisition, which is non-obvious and valuable. However, it does not mention other potential side effects such as validation behavior or permission requirements.

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 two sentences long and immediately states the core purpose. The second sentence adds crucial behavioral context without unnecessary words. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool has a simple create operation with 3 required parameters and an output schema, so return value details are likely covered. The description provides the essential workflow context (pending approval) and the critical self-approval restriction. It does not address error handling or preconditions, but given the presence of an output schema and sibling context, this is sufficient for a minimal viable description.

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 provides no descriptions for the parameters, and the description adds none either. The agent must rely solely on parameter names (material_id, quantity, requested_by), leading to ambiguity about required formats, constraints (e.g., positive quantity), or source of values. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('purchase requisition'), with a parenthetical clarifying its initial state ('pending approval'). This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_pending_requisition, which perform a different action on the same entity.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for creating requisitions but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. The note about not being able to approve its own requisition implies a workflow dependency but offers no explicit usage guidance or exclusions.

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