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

Annotations only declare the mutation shape (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false); the description adds the important behavior that no state change occurs until human approval plus execute_approved_action, and that business workflow approvals always apply regardless of MCP settings. It stops short of describing what the staged request looks like or what happens on rejection, so it is strong but not complete.

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 approval-workflow sentences are high value and clearly front-load the operational constraint, but the opening frame ('Use this when working with RetailHardHat permits records in the connected organization') and the bare restatement 'Create permit' duplicate the name/title without adding information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the approval-gate behavior – the biggest unknown for this mutation – is covered well. But for a nested-object create with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about field formats, the status enum, and which fields are honored at creation time.

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 there is a single nested 'data' object with eight sub-fields (siteId, name, type, applicationDate, status enum, dates, permitNumber, representativeContactId) – none documented. The only descriptor, 'Required fields are validated by the application', conveys no field-level meaning, and the 'status' enum values are never explained.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Create permit') scoped to 'RetailHardHat permits records in the connected organization', which an agent can distinguish from list_permits/get_permit/update_permit by the verb alone. It does not explicitly say how it differs from siblings like create_permit_document or update_permit, so it falls short of a 5.

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 crucial calling context – the request is staged and does not apply until a human approves it in Settings > MCP and execute_approved_action is invoked – which implies this is a two-step workflow. However, it never states when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., whether attaching documents requires a prior create) and offers no exclusions.

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