manage_depreciations

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description reveals that delete is one of the operations and explains the return format ('dict: Result of the operation including success status and data'). It also details parameter requirements per action, adding value beyond the safety hints.

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 well-structured with a brief overview, a bulleted list of operations, and a return type. It is informative without being verbose; every sentence adds context.

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 CRUD tool with 8 parameters and 5 actions, the description covers all operations, their required inputs, and the return type. It also defines the domain concept (depreciations), making it self-contained. The existing output schema covers return details, so this is complete.

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 schema has 100% coverage, providing descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that create requires depreciation_data with name and months, which is not explicitly marked as required in the schema's nested object. However, most parameter semantics are already in 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 states 'Manage Snipe-IT depreciations with CRUD operations' with a clear verb and resource, and it defines what depreciations are. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage other Snipe-IT entities.

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 lists all CRUD operations and specifies required parameters for each (e.g., create requires depreciation_data, get/update/delete require depreciation_id). It provides clear operational context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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