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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the required infrastructure_lifecycle_events:write scope, the scope-resolution rule (every feature resolves the most specific matching scope), and the duplicate-avoidance workflow. It stops short of describing rollback or error behavior, but adds real value beyond annotations.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the scope model, then the replacement exclusion, then the reuse hint, then the auth requirement. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 20-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual model (scope attachment, trigger/impact framing), the pre-call workflow, and the auth prerequisite, which is what an agent most needs. Defaults and enum semantics are left to the schema, which documents them comprehensively.

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% across all 20 parameters, including rich enum and constraint descriptions, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds conceptual context for the scope-defining params (feature_class, material, diameter band) but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (create a lifecycle strategy event) and immediately scopes it: events attach to a SCOPE, never to individual features. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling create_asset_lifecycle_event by defining the infra scope-based model.

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?

Explicit when/when-not guidance: it tells the agent what NOT to model as an event (replacement, which is priced by rates and scheduled by the renewal forecast), what to model instead (crack sealing, relining, resurfacing), and to call list_infrastructure_lifecycle_events first to reuse a scope.

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