Request Credits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: `ids` defaults to every request that played, a `path` writes the lines under '## Requests from chat' with each one once, and omitting `path` returns lines for pasting. It also warns that `credits(overwrite=True)` rewrites the file and that this tool must be rerun, plus a consent requirement for naming viewers. It does not describe file-creation or error behavior, but the key side effects and constraints are covered.

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 dense but front-loaded: it starts with what the tool produces, then gives usage timing, then parameter behavior and consent guidance. Every sentence carries useful information, though the run-on phrasing around `ids`, `path`, and the `credits` interaction could be split for readability.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, triggering context, parameter meaning, side effects, file-writing behavior, ordering with the sibling `credits` tool, and a consent/privacy caveat. Return formatting is appropriately left to the output schema. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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, and it does: `ids` is defined as the requests, with the default 'every one that played'; `path` is defined as either a CREDITS.md file or a song folder whose CREDITS.md receives the lines. It also explains the no-path return behavior, giving full practical meaning to both optional parameters.

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 that it produces credit lines for viewers whose requests shaped a song, including their name and request details, for the song's CREDITS.md. It distinguishes the result from the sibling `credits` tool by explaining that `credits(overwrite=True)` rewrites from SOURCES and that this tool should be run again afterward. The purpose is clear, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a direct verb-and-resource statement.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: use it when a song made from chat's requests is finished. It also explains what happens with and without `path`, and notes the ordering relationship with `credits(overwrite=True)`. It does not explicitly compare against request-listing siblings such as `request_list` or `request_where`, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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