Create Tool Request

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal action. It does not clarify whether the request creates a persistent record, whether it requires approval, whether it is synchronous/asynchronous, or what the outcome of the request is. With minimal annotation coverage, the description carries a heavy burden and fails to disclose this.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose with no redundancy. It covers the four request types without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple request-submission tool, the description is largely complete: the schema documents all inputs, and the purpose is clear. However, with no output schema, the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a request ID or confirmation), and it omits any context about post-request behavior. Still, given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description itself adds no additional parameter information, but the baseline for high coverage is 3, and no deficits exist.

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 tool's purpose: to request a new tool, MCP server, skill, or custom integration. It uses a specific verb ('Request') and identifies the exact resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lyzr_create_tool or lyzr_create_mcp_server which directly create entities.

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 you want to request something rather than create it directly, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_tool or create_mcp_server. It provides no when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

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