Create Checklist (Inspection)

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns the created object on success and includes the API endpoint, enhancing transparency. 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 three sentences plus endpoint info. It repeats the creation purpose in the first two sentences, which is slightly redundant but overall concise and front-loaded with key information.

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 has a nested 'list' parameter with no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure or the 'list' object contents. It mentions 'returns the created object' but lacks detail. Among many siblings, it doesn't differentiate from other create tools.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description explicitly lists the three required parameters, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'list' object structure, which is a nested object.

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 tool creates an instance of Inspection in a given Project, using the verb 'creates' and the specific resource 'Inspection'. It also specifies HTTP 201 on success and lists required parameters, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Use this to create a new Inspections' but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, which is acceptable but not excellent.

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