create_customer_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that work_item_ids is never echoed back, that it links work items at creation, and that the returned object omits work_item_ids. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it stops short of covering permissions or idempotency.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, one line per parameter, no redundant text. It is compact and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 covers the action, all parameters, the side effect of linking work items, the return value, and what is not returned (work_item_ids). It also names the relevant alternative tools, making it a complete guide for a create operation with an output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Each parameter gets a semantic explanation: customer_id is a UUID, description_html is HTML, link is a URL, and work_item_ids are UUIDs that link work items and are only settable here. This adds far more meaning than the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Create a request on a customer,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like retrieve_customer_request, update_customer_request, and delete_customer_request.

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 points to alternatives: 'Only settable here — use manage_customer_work_items to change links afterwards' and 'read the links with list_customer_work_items.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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