MCP PropTech

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Updates'), records history notes, fires webhooks for automation sync, and enforces status transition rules. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling or permission requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with core functionality in the first sentence, followed by essential details in a logical flow. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains the primary action, the second adds automation context, and the third provides critical transition rules—all without waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage rules, and behavioral context like webhook firing. It lacks details on return values or error responses, but given the schema's completeness and the description's focus on transitions and automation, it's largely sufficient for agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying parameter interactions (e.g., 'scheduledFor' is contextually linked to 'in_progress' status), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Updates the status', 'records a history note', 'Fires an n8n webhook') and resources ('maintenance ticket', 'automation system'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_open_tickets' (read-only) and 'notify_tenant' (communication-focused) by emphasizing status transitions and system synchronization.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by detailing valid status transitions (e.g., 'open→in_progress|awaiting_tenant|escalated'), which tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly suggests not using it for invalid transitions, though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives for edge cases.

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