create_requester

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new requester / contact,' which essentially restates the tool's name, and does not mention side effects, permission requirements, duplicate handling, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 very concise: one sentence for the purpose and a clear list of args. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff or redundant details. Every line earns its place, especially given the schema has no parameter descriptions.

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?

While the description covers the basic action and all parameters, it does not provide usage context, business rules, or caveats. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-value documentation is acceptable, but for a create tool, an agent would benefit from knowing what happens on success, whether there are duplicate constraints, or any required relationships (e.g., department_ids must exist). The description is incomplete for reliable use.

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. It lists each parameter with a brief phrase (e.g., 'Requester first name,' 'List of department IDs'), adding some clarity beyond the schema's property titles. However, it lacks format constraints, examples, or relationships, providing only minimal semantic value.

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 new requester / contact,' using a specific verb ('create') and a clear resource ('requester / contact'). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling read/filter tools like get_requesters, get_requester_by_id, and filter_requesters, and also clarifies that 'requester' and 'contact' are synonymous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it does not say whether to use this for creating a contact that may already exist, or if there is an update path. This leaves the agent without context for decision-making.

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