licenses_write

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write. The description adds real context beyond them: the deliberate translation of public product_key into Snipe-IT's write-side serial field, and an explicit statement that deletion and seat assignment are out of scope. It still doesn't say what happens on update versus create or what permissions are needed.

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?

Three short sentences with the operation, the surprising field mapping, and the scope limits each front-loaded and given exactly one sentence. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and scope plus the product_key mapping are covered. But for a 17-parameter write tool with no schema descriptions, the required action_name and the create/update discriminator are left unexplained, which is a meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 0% across 17 parameters, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only explains one field (product_key's serial mapping). The single required parameter, action_name, is never explained and has no enum, leaving the create-vs-update mechanism entirely opaque; the many id fields (license_id, company_id, category_id) are also unqualified.

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 pair (create or update) and resource (Snipe-IT software licence), which cleanly separates it from licenses_search, license_seats and delete_resource. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

'Use only for explicit writes' gives a positive usage condition, and the closing sentence carves out two clear exclusions (no deletion, no seat assignment) that implicitly route to delete_resource and license_seats. It does not name those alternative tools explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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