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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real side-effect context — the assignee may be notified and the record appears on the work order board — plus the underlying endpoint. It does not state permissions required or what happens on duplicate submission (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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?

Two sentences, with the operation class and side effects front-loaded before the endpoint reference. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the key unknowns: side effects, id sourcing, and the underlying API call. What is returned (e.g. the new work order id) is not mentioned, which is a modest gap for a create operation an agent may need to chain on.

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 80%, so the schema largely documents itself; the description adds value by clarifying that asset, location and assignee are foreign ids sourced from list tools, which the schema labels only as 'Asset id.', 'Location id.', 'User id to assign.' The remaining params (category, priority, dates) are left to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('create a new work order') and labels the operation class ('WRITE:'), which clearly separates it from upkeep_update_work_order and the read siblings. It stops short of naming the nearest alternative (upkeep_create_request), so the distinction from that sibling must be inferred.

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?

'Ids for asset, location and assignee come from the list tools' is a concrete prerequisite that routes the agent to upkeep_list_assets / upkeep_list_locations / upkeep_list_users before calling. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when to use create_request instead), so it is clear context but not full exclusions.

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