set_access_request_custom_meta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the core mutation ('Set') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or validation behavior. The 'mirrors' reference is vague without details of the mirror tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical mirror note is efficient. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is highly incomplete. It fails to mention any return values, error conditions, or parameter usage nuances, leaving the agent largely uninformed beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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 only 17% (only 'id' has a description). The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters, such as the differences between 'value', 'text', 'custom_meta_value_id', and 'custom_meta_value_ids'. It only implies a value parameter without clarifying which schema fields apply.

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: 'Set a custom meta field value on an access request.' It includes a specific verb, resource type, and target field, and explicitly references the sibling tool set_asset_custom_meta, distinguishing it as the access request variant.

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 clear context that this tool is for access requests ('on an access request') and references the alternative for assets ('mirrors set_asset_custom_meta'). It lacks explicit when/when-not exclusions, but the resource type is unambiguous.

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