Create record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds the describe-first dependency, but says nothing about failure modes (missing required fields, invalid resource), permission requirements, or whether partial data is rejected.

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?

Two terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It borders on under-specified rather than wasteful, which is the right failure direction for a compact definition.

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?

Given a nested free-form `data` object, 18 resource types, and no output schema, the description is thin: it delegates all field knowledge to `describe` but doesn't say what a successful call returns (e.g., new ID) or how resource-specific required fields differ. The describe-first pointer is the key dependency and it is present, so it is minimum-viable rather than inadequate.

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 50%; `data` is opaque free-form with only "see describe" in the schema, and the description reinforces that pointer rather than adding field-level meaning. The `resource` enum is self-documenting in the schema, so the description contributes little beyond what structured fields already carry.

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 (create) and resource (a Snipe-IT record), with the `resource` enum making the domain concrete. It is distinguishable from update/delete/restore siblings by the verb, but the description itself never names or contrasts an alternative.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a prerequisite workflow: "Call describe first for required fields." That is a real routing instruction an agent needs, but there are no when-not-to-use conditions and no mention of validation or duplicate-handling alternatives.

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