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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the operational meaning of those flags: calling twice creates two events and mutates the account's production plan. It also discloses the return value ("Returns the new event id") in the absence of an output schema. Auth requirements and side effects on dependent resources (e.g. inventory deduction) are not covered, keeping it below 5.

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 dense clauses with zero filler: the WRITE prefix, the definition, the risk warning, the alternative, and the endpoint are all front-loaded and each 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?

For a 9-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's effect, its non-idempotent failure mode, the duplicate-prevention path, the returned identifier, and the underlying endpoint. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 89% and the nested line_items fields are documented in the schema itself, so the schema carries essentially all parameter meaning. The description only obliquely signals that menu items are part of the payload ("with its menu items") without adding semantics beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 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?

Opens with an explicit verb and resource ("WRITE: create an event") and clarifies the resource scope ("a workday, shift, service or catering event") plus the payload content ("with its menu items"). No sibling tool creates events, so the agent can distinguish this immediately from the get_/list_/record_ siblings.

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?

Names the concrete alternative and the condition that selects it: "Use parsley_list_events first to avoid duplicates." Combined with the stated non-idempotency consequence, an agent has everything it needs to decide whether to check before calling.

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