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

The 'WRITE:' prefix plus 'Hiveage: POST /network' discloses the mutation and the underlying endpoint, which is real value given annotations only carry destructiveHint=false and a title. It stops short of saying what happens on validation failure or duplicate connections, and there is no output schema to explain the response.

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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments with no wasted language; the write marker and the conditional-shape rule come first. Minor redundancy in repeating schema-level field rules, but overall tight.

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?

A 17-parameter create tool with no output schema and only title/destructiveHint annotations needs more: the description omits most field semantics and the entire post-creation behavior. An agent can call it, but only by reading the raw schema.

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 only 41% across 17 parameters, so the description needed to compensate. Instead it restates the name/first_name/last_name logic already documented in the schema and says nothing about the two other required fields (business_email, currency) or the many undocumented optional fields (address, phone, country, primary_contact_*, etc.).

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 connection') and clarifies the domain meaning of 'connection' as client, vendor or company, which is non-obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling hiveage_create_contact, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 gives conditional guidance for the organization-vs-individual shapes, which is genuinely useful for choosing fields. However, it says nothing about when to create a connection versus a contact, no preconditions, no duplicate-handling advice, and no exclusions.

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