Create Crop Zone KPI

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

The description discloses that this tool creates a KPI object and returns it, which is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 concise: a one-line summary followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 simple create tool with 4 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the operation. It mentions the return type ('Created KPI object') and examples. However, it could be more complete by noting that the crop zone must exist, but overall it is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description's Args section mirrors the schema and adds minimal value, such as the example 'total production estimate' in the main description, but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Add a KPI value') and the resource ('to a crop zone'), with examples like 'total production estimate'. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like sia_create_crop_zone_characteristic, which adds a different type of data.

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 adding KPI values to crop zones, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sia_get_crop_zone_kpis for reading, or other creation tools). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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