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

Adds behavioral facts well beyond the annotations: the operation UPSERTS on asset_id, an asset may have at most ONE placement globally, and repeat calls just relocate the pin. It also discloses the required auth scope (asset_placements:write). The annotations carry only the safety profile, so this extra context is genuinely valuable.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what/where, the critical upsert rule, then the batch alternative and the scope requirement. Front-loaded with the core action and free of padding.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral risks (global single-placement, upsert/move on repeat, auth scope) and routes batch use elsewhere. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 every parameter (including x/y ranges, source enum, region_id) is already documented. The description restates the coordinate convention and origin but adds no new meaning for source or region_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Place an asset on a floorplan') and pins down the operation's identity with its coordinate system and upsert semantics. An agent can distinguish this from update_asset_placement or get_asset_placement 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 names the alternative for the batch case ('Use bulk_create with resource="asset-placements" to place many assets at once') and clarifies that re-calling is a move rather than a duplicate. It does not address when to use update_asset_placement instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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