Create a request

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

The description adds a valuable behavioral caveat about the `name` property resulting in a blank name if omitted, which is not in annotations. It also directs to comprehensive documentation. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like authentication requirements or response content, but annotations already cover mutation and non-destructiveness, so the added context is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs. The first provides the core purpose and a useful link to documentation, while the second is a focused note on the `name` pitfall. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 15 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the response will be (e.g., created request object) or common use cases beyond creation. It does point to docs and highlights the name issue, but given the tool's complexity, it could be more complete. The schema is thorough, so this is acceptable but not excellent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by emphasizing the `name` parameter recommendation and its consequence, and it links to the full property list in documentation. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, earning a 4.

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: 'Creates a request in a collection.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like updateCollectionRequest (updates) and createCollection (creates collections). No ambiguity.

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 for creating requests but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., updateCollectionRequest). It does not mention exclusion criteria or alternative tools, so 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.