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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description usefully adds that this is a WRITE, discloses the return payload (job UUID, ClientId, app link) despite there being no output schema, and names the backing endpoint. It stops short of stating permission requirements, validation/dedupe behavior for client fields, or reversibility.

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 compact statements, mutation flag front-loaded, no filler. Every clause carries information (what it creates, what it returns, the endpoint).

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 25-param, all-optional create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and returns but omits what constitutes a minimally valid call and how duplicate clients are handled. Adequate as a starting point, but an agent still has open questions before invoking it.

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 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but with 25 parameters the description's grouping into schedule, client contact/address, type, source, and notes meaningfully helps an agent navigate the flat field list. It still gives no guidance on which fields matter most or how they interact (e.g. ClientId vs inline client name fields).

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+resource ('WRITE: create a new job') and enumerates what the job contains (schedule, client contact and address, type, source, notes). It does not differentiate from close siblings like workiz_convert_lead_to_job or workiz_create_lead, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 'WRITE:' prefix signals a mutation, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus workiz_convert_lead_to_job (already have a lead) or workiz_create_lead (no job yet). No prerequisites are stated, e.g. whether a new client block or an existing ClientId is preferred.

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