create_service_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates the operation is a creation and that answers must match the service formConfig, which suggests validation behavior. However, it does not disclose return values, error behavior, permission requirements, or side effects beyond creating the request.

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 only two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and avoids repeating schema details. Every sentence contributes essential information about what the tool does and what it requires.

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?

Schema coverage is complete and the description covers the core prerequisite, but there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns or how failures occur. Given the tool has nested answers and multiple sibling lookup/creation tools, a bit more context about the expected result would make it fully complete.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions, including 'Service id or slug' and 'Form answers keyed by field name'. The description adds modest value by emphasizing that answers must match formConfig, but most parameter meaning is already covered by the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'service request', and is distinct from sibling tools like create_meeting and list_service_requests. It also clarifies the key requirement (serviceId or slug plus answers), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies the tool is used when creating a service request and mentions the needed serviceId or slug, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as list_services or get_service. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or routing to an alternative, so usage context is only implicitly present.

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