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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds two useful behavioral facts: the customer 'reaches no one' and is removable, so the call proceeds without a confirmation prompt, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. It stops short of covering duplicate handling or error behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the follow-on clauses are short and information-dense. There is minor redundancy ('Add a customer' immediately followed by 'Creates a customer') and a duplicated 'Bokio:' prefix matching the title, but nothing wasteful.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: what it creates, the ID it returns for chaining into create_invoice, the confirmation posture, and the auth requirement. It is largely complete, missing only duplicate/validation guidance.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'company or individual' enum for type, which the description merely repeats. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the structured fields.

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 specific verb+resource ('Add a customer', 'Creates a customer') and enumerates the core fields (name, type, contact details). It also distinguishes the tool's downstream role by noting it returns an ID used by create_invoice, which separates it from read-only siblings like bokio_list_customers.

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?

It gives clear context for when to reach for this tool (creating a customer whose ID feeds create_invoice) and includes a confirmation-behavior note. It does not, however, mention when NOT to use it or point to alternatives such as checking bokio_list_customers for duplicates first.

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