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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: external system changes are not automatically rolled back, and organization-configurable MCP approvals apply alongside business workflow approvals.

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 with the primary operation and uses three concise sentences. The approval sentence is somewhat generic, but it remains relevant to a write operation with external side effects.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, external rollback caveat, and approval context, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for a nested-object write tool with 0% schema description coverage, it omits enough field semantics and duplicate-linking behavior to remain only minimally adequate.

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 description adds essentially no field-level semantics. It says to "Review all transmitted fields" but does not explain the nested data object, which fields are required, or what siteId represents in relation to the external leasecommand system.

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, "Create/link", and a specific resource, "this site's location in the existing leasecommand connection". This is clear enough to distinguish the tool from generic site-creation tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the other create_*_linked_location siblings.

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 that an existing leasecommand connection is required, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives such as preview_leasecommand_sync or sync_leasecommand_locations. An agent must infer when this tool is appropriate versus the related integration tools.

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