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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true; the description reinforces this by saying it MUTATES Accelo data. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: form-encoded POST /api/v0/companies and returned shape { meta, response }, though auth/rate-limit/error behavior is not covered.

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?

Front-loads MUTATES and the core action, then adds endpoint, return shape, and update alternative in compact sentences. Every sentence adds contextual value without filler.

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?

Covers the mutation, endpoint, encoding, return shape despite no output schema, and the update alternative, while the schema covers required fields. Missing auth/permission requirements and error handling keep it just short of fully complete.

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 all six parameters, including the nested fields object, are already documented in the schema. The description adds only body encoding detail (form-encoded) and no per-parameter semantics, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 new company/client organization. It also names the Accelo POST endpoint for company creation, clearly distinguishing it from get/list/update operations.

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?

Clearly frames the tool as a mutation for new-company creation and notes that updates use POST /api/v0/companies/{id}, while no separate delete tool exists here. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for retrieval or generic requests, so it falls short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing.

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