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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the point is reused for this shop's jobs at the same address and that geocoding is external, but it does not describe overwrite/update behavior, permissions, or error handling for this mutation.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each sentence adds relevant context. It is slightly chatty but not verbose, and the product-specific phrasing such as 'Doing Work' is minor.

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?

The description covers integration with routes.day and external geocoding responsibility, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and unclear job_id/visit_id semantics, it omits important details about which identifier to use and how existing points are replaced.

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 only 60%, and the description does not clarify the roles of job_id and visit_id, which lack schema descriptions. It adds useful context for the source parameter, but that is already documented in the schema, leaving the job/visit association semantics underspecified.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: saving a map point for a job's address, used by routes.day. It implies it is not the start-location tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as routes_setStart or routes_apply.

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?

It gives practical usage context: look the address up with your own maps tools or have a person type it in, and notes that Doing Work does not geocode. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling route tools, but the context is clear.

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