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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description reinforces that with 'Cannot be undone' and 'only on an explicit request.' This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the generic destructiveHint flag. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, both purposeful. The core action is front-loaded and the irreversible side effect and authorization condition are stated immediately afterward with 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?

For a create operation with a nested object, the entity schema supplies the necessary structural detail, and the description supplies the key caveats: irreversibility and explicit-request-only usage. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and this gap is minor for a create action.

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% and the entity parameter is richly documented, including privacy restrictions, required fields, and inactive-vs-delete semantics. The tool description itself does not need to add parameter detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a sales tax code in QuickBooks Online, with new or existing tax rates attached to it.' This differentiates it from the sibling create_tax_agency and from read-only tax tools like get_tax_code and search_tax_codes.

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 gives clear context for when invocation is appropriate: 'only on an explicit request' and 'Cannot be undone.' It lacks an explicit mention of alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can decide when to use this tool.

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