tokportal_create_account_edit_request

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: false). The description goes far beyond by disclosing: the 8-credit debit, the manager resolution fallback, the atomic nature of assignment/debit/task creation, the condition that an unavailable manager never costs credits, and delivery-age eligibility rules for bundles. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 6 sentences, highly efficient, with no filler. Every sentence adds distinct information: purpose, cost, prerequisites, fallback logic, edge cases, atomicity. Information is front-loaded (verb+resource first) and flows logically from high-level to details.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, nested object, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, cost, fallback, atomicity, and bundle eligibility. However, it does not describe the return value or what a successful response looks like, which could help with error handling. Since there is no output schema, the description could have filled that gap. Slight deduction for missing response format.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'completed bundles remain eligible without a delivery-age limit; cancelled orders are never restored' – this context helps the agent understand the 'id' parameter's semantics for account selection. However, it does not elaborate on specific fields of the 'body' object beyond what the schema provides, missing a chance to clarify properties like 'requested_biography' or 'requested_profile_picture_url'.

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 verb ('Request'), resource ('profile edits for a delivered account'), and distinct scope. The title reinforces this. It differentiates from sibling tools like tokportal_configure_bundle_account and tokportal_get_account_edit_request by focusing on creating an edit request for an already-delivered account, not configuration or retrieval.

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 explicitly lists prerequisites: 'Active TokPortal Coverage and a routable active account manager are required.' It details the resolution fallback logic (active manager, then still-active manager relationship, then eligible non-cancelled order history). It also tells when NOT to use this tool (if manager is unavailable, no cost) and clarifies side effects (debits 8 credits, atomic operations).

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