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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations lack: it requires the 'floorplans:write' scope, and it states the exactly-one-of constraint that governs valid invocations.

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, front-loaded with the action and the key constraint, then usage context and scope. No redundancy, and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 full schema coverage and annotations but no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the action, the input constraint, auth scope, and calling context. It does not mention return behavior or idempotency implications, which would round it out.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the mutual-exclusivity rule ('Provide EXACTLY ONE of building_id or site_id') that the schema only implies per-field, which is a real semantic gain over the structured data.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a floorplan row') and immediately clarifies the scoping model (per-building vs site-level). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_building or create_floorplan_region, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it contrasts against.

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?

Strong when/when-not guidance: it explains the web app calls this per PDF page and that MCP clients 'rarely need to call this directly' since they don't upload the PDF, which steers the agent away from misuse. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool to use instead.

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