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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the required 'book' permission and the accepted date format (YYYY-MM-DD) for acquired and depreciation_start.

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 front-loaded (purpose, then permission, then arguments) and wastes no words. The flat run-on argument list is dense but acceptable given 15 parameters.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with 7% schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives the argument inventory, permission, and date formats, but omits whether unspecified fields are left unchanged (partial-update semantics) and the units of the _ore fields, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 7%, so the description must carry the load. It names every parameter and clarifies the two date formats, but gives no semantic meaning for cost_ore, residual_ore, useful_life_months, gl_account, or the account-code fields, leaving the rest undocumented in both places.

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?

'Ändra en anläggningstillgång' states a specific verb (edit) and resource (fixed asset), so the action is unmistakable. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_fixed_asset, delete_fixed_asset, or dispose_fixed_asset beyond the verb.

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 states the required permission ('book'), which is a useful precondition, and the presence of orgnr + asset_id implies this operates on an existing record. But it never explicitly says when to use this versus create/delete/dispose variants.

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