Create a new service area

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, and destructive traits, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds the domain context that the service area belongs to 'the business' and that boundaries are optional, but it does not disclose side effects such as duplicate-name handling or response behavior.

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 the first sentence repeats the title almost verbatim. The second sentence adds the only substantive detail, optional polygon boundary, so the structure is acceptable but not maximally efficient.

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?

With 10 parameters and a nested boundary object, the schema provides enough detail for calling the tool, and the description names the key optional boundary concept. It omits expectations about return values and gives no explicit duplicate-handling context, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions and examples for all parameters, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description only reinforces that the boundary parameter is optional and adds no meaning 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 uses the explicit verb 'creates' with the resource 'service area', clearly identifying the operation type. It also mentions the optional polygon boundary, which distinguishes it from sibling get/list/delete service-area tools.

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 usage is implied: an agent would use this tool when a new service area needs to be created, and sibling names make the resource category clear. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like update or delete.

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