Add premises identifier

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

Annotations cover only safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: values are stored as strings with leading zeros preserved, no registry verification is claimed, and OTHER scheme requires a scheme_label. Useful transparency for a mutation tool, though it says nothing about permissions or duplicate handling.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action leads and the constraints follow, though the storage/verification notes could be tightened.

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 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin. It documents a couple of behaviors and one validation rule but leaves most parameter meaning and any return/permission context unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full param burden, but it only touches 'value' (string, leading zeros) and 'scheme'/'scheme_label'. The required location_id and seven optional params (issuer, source, farm_id, confirmed, is_preferred, jurisdiction) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: adds a premises identifier to a root premises. An agent can distinguish it from add_identifier (animal identifiers) and update_premises_identifier by the 'add to a root premises' framing, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation name (creating a new premises identifier vs updating one), and one concrete rule is given ('Scheme OTHER needs a scheme_label'). However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to update_premises_identifier/delete_premises_identifier is provided.

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