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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the required write scope and the fact that is_builtin is forced to false, which the schema does not convey.

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 that front-load the action and then add only the two non-obvious constraints (builtin immutability, required scope). No filler or repetition.

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 create tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the relevant extras: resource scope, forced field behavior, and auth scope. Minor gaps remain (e.g., what is returned or conflict handling on duplicate code), but nothing essential 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 the schema fully documents all six parameters including regex, enum, and format hints. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (Create) and resource (infrastructure feature class) and scopes it to tenant-defined classes. An agent can distinguish it from sibling create_* tools by resource, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The builtin exclusion ('Builtin classes are managed by AssetLab and cannot be created via API') tells the agent when this tool cannot be used, which is useful. However, no alternatives are named for the builtin case and no other conditions for use are given.

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