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

Annotations already establish the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the description's added value is the required write scope, the coordinate normalization convention, and the optional Location linkage - all useful operational context. It stops short of covering duplicate-label behavior or what the response contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then coordinate convention, then linkage and scope. No wasted text.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers creation semantics, coordinate system, linking, and auth. Missing only edge-case behavior such as duplicate labels or validation failures.

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 the parameters are already documented; the description only reaffirms the polygon coordinate convention and the location_id link, adding little 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 region ... on a floorplan') and clarifies the region is a labeled room or zone, which cleanly separates it from create_floorplan, create_location, and create_service_area in the sibling list.

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 useful invocation context (optional Location linking via location_id, required floorplan_regions:write scope) but never says when to prefer this over siblings like bulk_create or when creating a region is appropriate versus creating a Location first.

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