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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it confirms a user-confirmation step before creation and states that centres are re-listed afterwards, which goes beyond the basic annotation flags.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: scope, a limitation, and a post-creation behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema) and available annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow (confirmation), and post-creation listing. It does not detail return values or error scenarios, but the mention of re-listing centres supplies practical context.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description mentions "exact name, optional parent, and description" which maps to name, parent_profit_centre_id, and description but does not add additional meaning 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?

The description clearly states "Create one profit centre for an entity" with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like create_cost_centre. It also notes there is no apply-all shortcut, reinforcing its single-resource scope.

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 gives a clear usage context: create one profit centre at a time, after showing the user the exact name/parent/description. It also states an explicit limitation (no apply-all shortcut), though it does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use.

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