Create Crop Zone

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it returns a 'Created CropZone object with ID', which is useful. No contradictions with annotations.

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 description is well-structured with an overview, bulleted arguments, and return statement. It is clear and not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise without losing meaning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, 6 required, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameters, and mentions the return. It lacks details on error conditions or dependencies, but is sufficient for basic usage.

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 83%, but the description adds value by grouping parameters by purpose and explaining the linking concept (e.g., 'UUID of the parent field'). It clarifies the role of each field beyond the schema's short descriptions.

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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'new crop zone', and explains that it links multiple entities (field, area, crop, variety, season), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sia_create_field or sia_create_area.

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 description implies usage for creating crop zones but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sia_create_crop_zone_characteristic or sia_create_crop_zone_kpi. No when-not-to guidance is provided.

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