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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses a non-obvious behavior: in write-confirmation mode nothing is created and a pending-action code is returned instead of a record. It does not cover permission requirements or validation-failure behavior, but the pending-action disclosure is genuinely valuable context the annotations lack.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action and return shape front-loaded, followed by the conditional edge case. No filler and every sentence adds value.

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 mutation tool, the description covers the action, the return shape, and the important write-confirmation branch, with annotations and an output schema filling in safety and return details. It is nearly complete, though it omits access/permission requirements.

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% for both required parameters (model, values), and the description adds no additional semantics about them. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 ('Creates a record in an Odoo model') and describes the return payload. It is separable from siblings like odoo_write/odoo_unlink by implication, but never names a sibling or the model/record scope explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'create'; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer odoo_write or odoo_execute, and no prerequisites noted. The write-confirmation aside hints at a condition but does not route the agent to an alternative.

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