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

Annotations already declare write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds an important auth requirement (LocalSchema Pro API key in request headers) and clarifies the report toggle, without contradicting annotations. It does not detail failure modes, but the safety profile is largely covered.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the create/update purpose and optional report toggle, followed by the auth note. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a six-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, create/update condition, and API-key requirement. It omits return or error behavior, but the schema and annotations carry most remaining burden.

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 all six parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes client_id as the update selector and the report toggle, adding no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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: create a client (brand) or update one by client_id, plus optional report toggle. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_clients (listing) and save_location (locations).

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?

Explains the create-vs-update condition via client_id, giving clear context for invocation. However, it does not name alternatives such as list_clients for finding a client_id or save_location for location updates, so there are no explicit exclusions or sibling routing.

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