update_request_state

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds that it's experimental and requires WDTK_API_KEY, which are useful behavioral constraints beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding only essential authentication context. No extraneous text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks parameter value hints, which limits completeness for an agent to correctly determine valid state values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters. It only mentions 'user-assessed state' but does not describe valid values for the 'state' parameter or the format of 'request_id'. This is insufficient for proper tool invocation.

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 it updates the user-assessed state of a request, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_request_record or build_request_url. The verb 'Update' and resource 'state of a request' are specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions the experimental nature and API key requirement, providing some usage context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it.

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