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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description usefully adds the return shape ('the new record with its _id') and the underlying POST /people endpoint, but says nothing about duplicate handling despite the non-idempotent hint, or about rate limits or permissions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the core action, then the return value and the endpoint. No sentence is 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?

For a simple four-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece (the returned _id) and matches the annotations. Only the non-idempotent duplication risk is left unaddressed.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description's only parameter-relevant detail ('a client by default') restates the role field's own schema description. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema carries the load.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('add a person... to the workspace') and labels the operation with a leading 'WRITE:' marker, so the effect is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, plutio_create_company, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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 'add a person' framing implies when to use it and the default 'client' role hints at the common case, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer plutio_create_company or plutio_list_people, nor any stated prerequisites or duplicate-handling advice.

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