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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it creates a new TAL alignment, duplicate handling defaults to keep_first, auto-maps common column names, and it returns a task whose result carries tal_id and ts_handle while painting the open map. It could say more about how destructive the operation is to existing TALs, hence 4.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core action and the input formats lead, and the sibling routing comes last. It remains readable, though the run-on listing of alternative tools is packed tightly.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description restates the task/result contract usefully. However, for a 12-parameter destructive tool with 8% schema coverage, several parameters go unexplained in both description and schema, leaving real 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 only 8% and there are 12 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies assignments vs assignments_handle, duplicate_part_policy (keep_first), territory_path, and implies part_layer/tal_label usage, but leaves ts, tal_id, ts_handle, map_session_id, expected_revision, and missing_part_policy unexplained. Partial compensation earns a mid score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Builds territories from known part-to-territory assignments') and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming the exact input shape (ZIP-to-territory sheet, territory_path hierarchy) and how it produces a new alignment (TAL). An agent can distinguish it from auto_build, account_build, and create_territory_from_parts without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent: 'Location points load with ingest_accounts; balanced partitions come from auto_build; grouping by a column is account_build', and tells the agent to source assignments via request_assignment_upload. This is when-to-use/when-to-use-alternative guidance of the highest quality.

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