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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the authorization requirement ("team builder or organization admin+") and the precondition that the process must be in Unsorted, though it does not describe side effects on failure or re-run behavior.

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 tight sentences: the action and destination come first, then the when-to-use/alternative guidance. The role parenthetical is the only slightly heavy element, and nothing is wasted.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, the alternative, the permission gate, and the precondition. It stops short of describing return/confirmation behavior or error conditions, which are the only remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 67% — parentId and processId carry schema descriptions, but orgId is undocumented in both schema and description. The description reinforces the meaning of processId (an existing/Unsorted process) and parentId (the filing area) but does not map parameters explicitly, so it only marginally exceeds the schema baseline.

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 ("File") and resource (an existing Clarity process) and the destination (an area of the process landscape), which the tool name ("createClarityProcessNode") does not make obvious. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from proposeClarityLandscapeProcess, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 an explicit use condition ("a process that already exists but sits in Unsorted") and names the alternative tool (proposeClarityLandscapeProcess) with the condition that selects it ("brand-new one"). It even states the required role (team builder or organization admin+), leaving little to inference.

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