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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the pm_schedules:write scope requirement and the mandatory top-down ID resolution sequence. It does not mention side effects like auto-generated work orders, though auto_generate_wo is documented in the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the auth prerequisite, then the flagged IMPORTANT workflow note. No filler and nothing buried.

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 29-parameter creation tool with no output schema and only one required field, the description covers the two things most likely to cause a failed call: missing scope and unresolved location hierarchy. It omits guidance on the mutually exclusive target families (asset vs location vs system vs infrastructure), though the schema flags that mutual exclusivity itself.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already explains every parameter including the asset_id/asset_ids and location_id/location_ids conventions. The description adds only the cross-parameter ordering constraint ('provide all three IDs explicitly'), which is useful but does not go beyond the individual field docs.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create a new preventive maintenance schedule'), which is unambiguous against most siblings. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling create_compliance_pm_schedule or from create_pm_template, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

It gives a concrete pre-call workflow (resolve site -> building -> location via list_sites/list_buildings/list_locations) and states the required scope, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over create_compliance_pm_schedule or create_pm_template.

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