expiries_create

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description goes meaningfully beyond that by disclosing the side effect: members receive the `expiry.due` notification at `remindDaysBefore` (default 30), then 7, 1, and 0 days before expiry. That notification cascade is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields. It does not cover duplicate handling or past-date behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the kind taxonomy and then the notification behavior in priority order. It is dense and em-dash-heavy but every sentence carries information; the kind list is long but functional.

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 10-parameter create tool with an output-less mutation and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the domain taxonomy, the vehicle-vs-company scoping rule, and the reminder behavior. Gaps remain around duplicate/conflict handling and what happens with an already-past `expiresAt`, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add some meaning the schema lacks, notably which kinds are vehicle-scoped vs company-scoped and the reminder cadence behind `remindDaysBefore`, but the remaining fields (label, notes, number, provider, validFrom, companyId) are left entirely to 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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ("Record something with an expiry date") and enumerates the domain-specific kinds, which lets an agent map the tool to compliance-document tracking. It is distinguishable from expiries_list/get/update/renew by being the creation path, though it never states that relationship 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?

Implied usage only: the kind taxonomy hints that vehicle documents take a `vehicleId` while certificat_digital/contract/autorizatie/other are company-level, so an agent can infer which fields to supply. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of when to prefer expiries_update or expiries_renew instead of creating a new record.

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