create_request_by_request_id_by_status

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey: readOnlyHint=false indicates mutation, destructiveHint=false indicates it is not destructive, and idempotentHint=true is not echoed or explained. It does not disclose consequences, required permissions, valid status values, or response behavior.

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 compact and front-loads the core action before the endpoint and arguments. The Args list is somewhat redundant with the input schema, but the redundancy is minimal and improves clarity rather than bloating the 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the endpoint and parameter roles are present and sufficient for basic invocation. However, it omits valid status options, usage conditions, and any guidance on how this relates to sibling status-update or request-update tools, leaving some practical gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. The Args section compensates by labeling request_id as 'Request ID' and status as 'New status', adding semantic value the schema's generic titles do not provide. It stops short of enumerating possible status values, but the two required parameters are adequately explained.

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 states a specific action, 'Update a request's status', along with the exact endpoint pattern, so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate among closely related siblings like update_request_by_request_id or create_issue_by_issue_id_by_status, so it falls short of a top score.

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 intended use is implied by 'Update a request's status' and the endpoint structure, but there are no explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisite conditions, or mentions of alternative tools. It provides clear context without exclusions, but leaves routing decisions mostly to inference.

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