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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent with that, additionally stating the return value ('the new profile including its id'), which matters because no output schema exists. It also discloses that profile fields can be set in the same call, though it omits permission/error 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with operation type and effect; nothing is wasted except arguably the raw endpoint string. The key prerequisite and return-value facts come before the trailing API note.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, return value, and cross-referenced field semantics. It lacks any note on permissions or duplicate-handling failure behavior, which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 first, last, and the nested fields structure. The description adds only a pointer that 'fields' matches breeze_update_person's shape, 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 (create a new person profile) and marks the operation type with a 'WRITE:' prefix. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like breeze_update_person and breeze_list_people, which are named explicitly.

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 prerequisite ('Check breeze_list_people first to avoid duplicates') and a cross-reference for the fields parameter shape ('same field shape as breeze_update_person'). It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the routing guidance is actionable.

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