asset_requests

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds real context beyond that: the operation is limited to the authenticated user's own request and requires explicit user intent, plus the negative capability list. It does not say what happens on a duplicate submit/cancel or whether permission scopes are required, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the trigger condition, then the exclusions. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the most consequential ambiguity unresolved: which identifier to supply and what action_name accepts.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only hints at action_name's two modes (submit/cancel) without giving literal values, and says nothing about asset_id vs asset_tag vs serial vs expected_checkout vs note, leaving the agent unable to choose the identifying parameter.

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 pair (submit/cancel) on a specific resource (a requestable asset request), scoped to the authenticated user's own request. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from adjacent operations (approval, checkout, deletion), so an agent can separate it from assets_write, asset_lifecycle, or delete_resource.

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?

"Use only when the user explicitly asks to request or cancel a request" is an explicit trigger condition, and "does not approve requests, checkout assets, or delete data" is an explicit when-not boundary. It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use for approval/checkout instead, which keeps it out of the top band.

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