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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile needs no repeating. The description adds genuinely new context: a required authorization scope (floorplan_regions:write) and the coordinate convention (normalized 0-1, origin top-left) that governs how the polygon must be authored. It does not mention that repeat calls produce duplicate regions, but that is a minor gap.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the coordinate constraint and linking option follow in priority order, with the scope requirement last.

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 7-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and a clear annotation profile, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to author a valid call. It omits what is returned (e.g. the new region ID), which is acceptable given there is no output schema but would still have been useful for chaining.

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 is already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates polygon normalization and clarifies that location_id must point to an existing Location, adding a little meaning but not going beyond the schema's own guidance.

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 region") and disambiguates the noun with "(labeled room or zone) on a floorplan," so the agent can distinguish it from create_floorplan or update_floorplan_region without opening a 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?

Gives clear context: regions are created against an existing floorplan and may optionally be linked to an existing Location, plus the required write scope. It does not state when not to use it or point to siblings (e.g. bulk_create, update_floorplan_region), but the usage conditions are otherwise clear.

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