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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantive behavioral context the annotations lack: the returned payload {model, id} and the two-step confirmation flow where a pending code may come back instead of a created record, requiring odoo_confirm. It does not mention permissions or whether the create is reversible.

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?

Three short front-loaded sentences: what it does, what it returns, and the conditional next step. No filler, and the most important routing information (the confirmation branch) is not buried.

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-value documentation is not required, yet the description still flags the pending-code case, which is the key edge behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile and a complete schema, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only permission/error semantics are unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters (model, values) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for 'values' beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Crea un registro') and notes the return payload shape {model, id}, which is enough to distinguish it from read/write siblings. It never explicitly contrasts itself with odoo_write, but 'create' vs 'write' is unambiguous for an agent.

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?

Gives a concrete routing rule: if the account requires write confirmation and a pending code is returned, ask the user and call odoo_confirm. That is a real when-to-use-this-vs-sibling instruction, though it only covers the confirmation branch and says nothing about when to prefer this over odoo_write for existing records.

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