workiva_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses method restrictions (GET always, WRITE condition), base URL mapping for surface, and JSON string format. Also notes to record unknown errors with kb_add. Lacks authentication but acceptable for escape hatch.

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?

Description is a single compact paragraph with front-loaded purpose and efficient details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (multiple surfaces, method rules, JSON params), description covers purpose, usage, surfaces, method constraints, and error handling. With output schema present, return values need not be explained. Complete enough for agent use.

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 description must compensate. It explains surface with three base URLs, and body_json/params_json as JSON strings. For path and method, it provides only minimal context beyond schema, but overall adds meaningful semantics.

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 is an 'escape hatch for any endpoint not wrapped by a dedicated tool' and lists examples (tags, pivot views, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling dedicated 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?

Explicitly says when to use (endpoints lacking a dedicated tool) and when not to (dedicated tools exist for read-style POSTs). Also specifies that GET is always allowed and other methods require writes enabled.

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