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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important side effect: 'Starts billing.' That is genuinely useful beyond structured data. However, it says nothing about required permissions, cost magnitude or billing cadence, whether the action is reversible (delete_territory exists but that link is unstated), or what happens on failure.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the enum mapping and billing side effect follow in priority order. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 one-parameter creation call it covers the parameter fully and flags billing, but with no annotations and no output schema the description still omits auth requirements, cost expectations, and whether a territory identifier or status is returned. Adequate but with clear gaps for a billed mutation.

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 0% and the single parameter 'index' is opaque from the schema alone, yet the description fully maps both enum values to names and CPU sizes ('1 = Watchtower (1 CPU), 2 = Stronghold (6 CPU)'). This completely compensates for the missing schema documentation for the only parameter.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb plus resource ('Create a new territory'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from delete_territory, rename_territory, and list_territories in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, but the create verb alone separates it from the read/modify territory tools.

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 description implies the usage context by defining the two territory tiers, so an agent can decide which variant to request, but it never states when creating a territory is appropriate versus other tools, nor any prerequisites such as billing state or quota limits. Guidance is implied through the enum explanation rather than stated as workflow advice.

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