Create maintenance report

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

Annotations already establish this as a non-read-only, non-destructive open-world write. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond them: the report is not shared with tenants unless shareWithTenants is true, which affects who sees the record. It stops short of describing the confirm/approval requirement or any permission model.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but roughly 250 characters are spent duplicating 34 enum values that already live in the input schema. That block does not earn its place and buries the one genuinely useful sentence about tenant sharing at the end.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and 43% schema description coverage, the definition covers the type taxonomy and sharing semantics but omits the confirm/approval flow, required-vs-optional framing for the 4 undocumented parameters, and any failure or permission context.

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 43% (below 50%), so the description must compensate. It does add real value for shareWithTenants (whose schema entry has only a default, no description) and implies propertyId. But its dominant content is a verbatim re-listing of the maintenanceType enum, which is already fully defined in the schema and therefore adds no meaning.

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 and resource: 'Log a maintenance issue on a property.' An agent can distinguish it from create_task or add_property by the resource. It does not, however, name or contrast 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With create_task, update_property, and add_communication_message among siblings, the agent gets no help deciding whether a maintenance issue belongs here or in a generic task tool, and no prerequisites (e.g. property must exist) are stated.

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