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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the insert-only contract ('an existing record is never updated, nothing is deleted') and the concrete non-idempotency consequence ('creating the same name twice creates two records'), which explains the idempotentHint=false flag rather than merely restating it. Note the description's 'nothing is deleted' framing sits in tension with destructiveHint=true, though the mismatch is more a flag-granularity issue than a direct claim reversal.

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 'WRITE:' operation class, then the dedupe precondition, then the endpoint. Every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety-relevant behavior (insert-only, duplicate risk, dedupe workflow) that annotations alone don't explain. It omits auth/permission requirements and what identifier is returned on success, which are the main remaining gaps.

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 55%, so roughly half the parameters (email, phone, comments, contact fields, addresses) are undocumented in both places. The description's 'client, supplier or both' does clarify the semantics of the enum-typed 'type' parameter, but it adds no meaning for the remaining payload fields; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource ('create a NEW client, supplier or both in Megaventory') and uses the 'WRITE:' prefix to place it in the mutation family, which cleanly separates it from the many list_* siblings. No ambiguity about what the call produces.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to megaventory_list_clients_suppliers first and gives the reason (duplicate names create duplicate records), which is a concrete when-to-use-alternative instruction. It does not state any when-not-to-use case beyond that dedupe prerequisite, so it falls short of a full 5.

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