erp_cari_olustur

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 states the tool creates a new customer card and mentions a post-creation URL, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not explicit), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose clearly. The second sentence adds useful post-creation context (the URL). There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating behavioral details from the purpose statement.

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?

Given this is a creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, the created object), error conditions, authentication requirements, or system constraints. The URL mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context needed for a mutation operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation (including required fields and defaults). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'ERP sisteminde yeni cari kartı oluşturur' (creates a new customer card in the ERP system). It specifies the verb ('oluşturur' - creates) and resource ('cari kartı' - customer card), distinguishing it from sibling tools like erp_cari_listele (list customer cards). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like erp_stok_olustur (create stock) or erp_dekont_olustur (create payment slip), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid CariKodu), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing cards), or how it relates to sibling tools like erp_cari_listele. The only contextual information is the post-creation URL, which doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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