Create inspection

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

Annotations give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real value on top: the record is created in Draft status, no one is notified, the saved inspection is returned, and a separate tool must be called to set the outcome. Those are exactly the post-call state facts an agent needs. Minor gap: with idempotentHint=false, a note on duplicate handling would help.

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 short but front-loaded with a sentence that repeats the field list that the next sentence lists again (type, date, agency, inspector, notes). That duplication is the main waste; the genuinely useful facts (Draft status, no notification, follow-up tool) are buried in the second paragraph.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral context: resulting status, notification behavior, return value, and the sibling needed to complete the workflow. The remaining gap is that one undocumented parameter (notes) is not explained anywhere.

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 67%, and the description mostly restates the field list already visible in the schema. It does add a bit of semantic gloss for agency (internal, county, city, independent agency), which clarifies the enum values. But notes has no schema description and the description supplies nothing about what belongs there, leaving the coverage gap unfilled.

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?

States a specific verb (creates/logs) and resource (a Contractor Foreman inspection on a project) plus the identity fields that define the record. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling record_inspection_result, which handles the pass/fail outcome, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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 names the follow-up tool (record_inspection_result) and what it covers, and narrows the use case to a Draft-status inspection. It also says nobody is notified, which is useful for deciding whether an extra notification step is needed. It stops short of stating exclusions such as when to use get_inspection or list_inspections instead, but the create-vs-fetch split is fairly obvious from the names.

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