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

The 'WRITE:' prefix and 'The reply includes the PIN' disclose the mutation and a non-obvious output consequence, and the duplicate warning signals the non-idempotent behavior declared in annotations. It stops short of covering auth/permission prerequisites or whether the PIN is retrievable later. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so this is a solid additive disclosure rather than a gap.

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 the 'WRITE:' signal and the core verb+resource. Every sentence contributes: scope, the person-vs-doors boundary, the return value, the duplicate guard, and the endpoint. No 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 7-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the write, the two-step workflow, the duplicate check, and the key return value (PIN). The one omission is that the reply also presumably carries the created person's identifier needed for the follow-up grant call, which would close the loop.

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 all seven parameters are already documented, including the pin/generate_pin interaction. The description adds only that a PIN and/or card are optional inputs ('with a PIN and/or card'), which the schema's required list already implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('creates a permanent access user'), names the person categories it covers, and explicitly distinguishes scope from a sibling ('creates the person only; use remotelock_grant_access to give them doors'). An agent can separate it from remotelock_create_access_guest and remotelock_grant_access without opening any schema.

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 concrete when-to-use routing ('use remotelock_grant_access to give them doors'), a pre-call check ('Check remotelock_list_access_persons first to avoid duplicates'), and the alternative for PIN generation via the pin/generate_pin pair. No inference is required to pick this tool or a sibling.

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