create_request_naming

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only indicates it's a WRITE operation but does not describe idempotency, failure modes, rate limits, or return behavior (e.g., response structure). Incomplete given no annotations.

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?

Single sentence with key information, front-loaded. However, the mention of 'naming' may be a typo, slight deduction. Overall efficient.

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 create tool with nested parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or typical usage context. With high complexity, more detail is needed.

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 description adds context by listing minimum required fields, but it includes 'naming' which is not in the schema (only 'namingPattern'), causing potential confusion. Schema coverage is 100% but description introduces inaccuracy.

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 resource 'request naming rule', specifying it is a WRITE operation using the classic Config API v1. It is distinct from sibling tools like update, delete, and list.

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 minimum body requirements but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_request_naming. No context on when not to use it or typical scenarios.

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