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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: no mutation occurs until a human approves the exact request in Settings > MCP and execute_approved_action is called, and approval requirements are administrator-configurable while business workflow approvals always apply. That is exactly the kind of write-path transparency the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags cannot convey. It stops short of saying what happens if approval is denied or how the pending action is surfaced.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with applicability, then the core behavior, then the approval gate. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing repeats the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the approval workflow is well covered. But for a mutation tool whose nested payload fields are entirely undocumented by schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent without enough guidance to construct a valid daily log.

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 tool takes a nested data object with entryDate (date or date-time), summary (10,000 char cap), optional workersOnSite and weatherConditions, plus a UUID siteId. The description explains only one implicit behavior (author derived from the connection) and says nothing about the required data fields, date format acceptance, or units/meaning for workersOnSite.

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 and resource ("Create a field log") and adds that the author is derived from the connection rather than supplied. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as update_daily_log, list_daily_logs, or attach_daily_log_photo, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Use this when working with RetailHardHat field_operations records in the connected organization" is broad context rather than a selection rule, and no alternative tool is named. The approval precondition is spelled out, which partly compensates, but the when-versus-which guidance is only implied.

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