create_intake_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most consequential behaviors: generating a passwordless upload link and optionally emailing the client. It does not say whether the link is returned in the response, how long it stays valid, or what happens if the client already exists — gaps that matter for a mutation with an external side effect.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the side effects. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 7-parameter creation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key outbound side effect. It could still note what the call returns (presumably the magic link/request id) since no output schema exists to convey that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters in detail, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds a small amount beyond it by calling out the 'optionally emails' behavior, which clarifies the sendInvitationEmail default, and by framing the request as a dossier/checklist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (create a client document intake request / dossier) and immediately adds the notable side effects: a zero-password magic upload link and optional client email. This separates it cleanly from siblings like create_template or create_or_update_client.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and resource — an agent can infer this is the tool for opening a new intake request. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings (e.g. request-from-template vs ad-hoc), and no stated prerequisites such as the client existing beforehand.

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