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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: non-idempotency (creates duplicates on repeated calls), side effects (inserts into D1 usage_log), error conditions (401/403/404/429/5xx) with actionable advice, and required APS scopes. It also notes that linked_model_id is not forwarded to ACC's linkedDocuments field. This goes beyond the schema and is exceptionally transparent for a mutating tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (When to use, When NOT to use, APS scopes, Rate limits, Errors, Side effects) and front-loads the main purpose. It is verbose, but most content is relevant. The rate limits section includes Model Derivative and OSS details that are not directly relevant to this Issues API, adding minor noise. Still, it is organized and readable, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and is a mutation with side effects, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage triggers, exclusions, scopes, rate limits, error handling, side effects, and return value. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke it correctly, and what to expect in response.

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 the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that the worker strips the 'b.' prefix from project_id (also in schema), and clarifies that linked_model_id is only for ScanBIM cross-referencing and not sent to ACC. These details are not obvious from the schema alone, justifying an above-baseline score of 4.

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 clearly states the tool creates an ACC issue via the APS Construction Issues v1 API, specifying the exact resource (Issues module) and action (create). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming acc_create_rfi as the alternative for RFIs and clarifying that markups are not issues. This is a specific verb+resource pair with clear differentiation.

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 has explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It gives concrete triggers (detect_clashes flagged a critical clash, field user reports a QC defect) and excludes alternatives (acc_create_rfi, model markups). It also provides error handling guidance and rate limit context, making it clear when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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