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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds two things annotations cannot: the required floorplans:write scope (an auth prerequisite) and the fact that this is normally driven by a PDF upload flow rather than called standalone. It does not mention idempotency or what happens on duplicate pages, so it stops short of full coverage.

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?

Four tight sentences with the action first, then the structural constraint, then the usage caveat, then the permission requirement. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema and a non-default safety profile, the description covers auth, scope selection, and realistic usage context, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of saying what the call returns (e.g., the created floorplan id) or how it interacts with the subsequent detection stages implied by the status enum.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint not encoded in the schema: mutually exclusive building_id vs site_id with the semantic meaning of each (per-building floor vs campus plan). The PDF-page framing also gives context for pdf_storage_path, page_number, and page_width_pt beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 floorplan row") and disambiguates scope by requiring exactly one of building_id or site_id. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from close siblings such as create_floorplan_region or update_floorplan, leaving that distinction to the tool name alone.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ("the web app calls this per page of an uploaded PDF") and, unusually, when-not-to-use ("MCP clients rarely need to call this directly since they do not upload the PDF itself"). The scope condition for choosing building_id vs site_id is also stated as a hard rule rather than left to inference.

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