Create Request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not the side effects, not required permissions, not whether the request is created in a draft/open state, not what happens on failure. A single sentence that only names the operation leaves a mutation tool fully opaque.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence does not earn its place because it conveys no information beyond the tool name.

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 mutation tool with a nested untyped body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the payload shape and behavior. It provides none of that, so an agent cannot invoke it correctly.

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?

The one required parameter 'body' is a free-form object with additionalProperties {} and 0% schema description coverage, so the schema says nothing about what fields it expects. The description does not compensate at all, leaving the agent with no idea what payload to send.

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 restates the tool name and title almost verbatim ('Create a request'), which is the textbook tautology case. It does imply the resource is a 'request' rather than a change/task, but it offers no verb nuance, no scope, and no differentiation from the many sibling create_* tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing among the roughly 40 siblings (create_change, create_task, save_request_draft, etc.). An agent cannot tell from the description when to create a request versus saving a draft or creating a change.

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