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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already declares this is a mutating write, and the 'WRITE:' prefix merely confirms it. The description adds the non-idempotent/duplicate-creation trait via the 'search first' warning and the POST endpoint, but discloses nothing about permissions, side effects, or what is returned.

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?

Four short, front-loaded clauses with no filler: the write nature leads, then field guidance, then the duplicate-avoidance instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Core create semantics and the critical individual-vs-organization branching are covered, which suits a 1-required-param tool. But given 20 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the omission of return-value information and the many optional fields leaves the picture only partially 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?

With 20 parameters and only 45% schema coverage, the description carries real weight by mapping the required 'type' to the correct name fields (individual -> first_name/last_name, organization -> full_name), which the schema does not express as conditional logic. However, the other ~18 optional parameters get no explanation, leaving much of the schema's gap unfilled.

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 ('create a new individual or organization constituent') and immediately branches on the type, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It is clearly distinct from the search/get/update/list siblings by its create action.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to call bloomerang_search_constituents first to avoid duplicate donors, which is a strong when-to-use alternative with a named sibling. It doesn't state a when-not condition or point to bloomerang_update_constituent for existing records, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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