Create property

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds context annotations cannot convey: the returned propertyId and appUrl, and the implicit auth distinction (upload link works 'no login'). Permissions for creation itself are not spelled out.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and return values, then the optional workflow guidance. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return values (propertyId, appUrl). It also closes the loop on the natural next step (photos via upload link or appUrl), so an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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?

Only one parameter (name) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it as the listing address. The description adds no syntax, format, or default guidance for name, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create a new Pedra property') and immediately names the return values. It also references the sibling tools (pedra_create_upload_link, pedra_list_property_images) that handle the adjacent photo workflow, so an agent can place it in the tool set without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing advice for the follow-on photo step: use pedra_create_upload_link for device photos (noting it needs no login), or hand the user the appUrl and then call pedra_list_property_images. It does not say when creating a property is appropriate relative to e.g. pedra_list_properties, but the alternatives it does name are actionable.

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