create_fixed_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a confirmation-before-commit requirement, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects on the ledger, or what happens to the optional depreciation settings. Real but partial disclosure.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action before the optional-depreciation qualifier. The parenthetical earns its place by enumerating the depreciation sub-fields; nothing is wasted.

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 21-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. The confirmation instruction helps, but the create operation's effects and safety profile are largely undocumented, leaving an agent to infer them from the schema alone.

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 21 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description groups the depreciation-related params (method, useful life, salvage, GL accounts) but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Register) and resource (new fixed asset), plus names the optional depreciation settings it accepts. The word 'new' implicitly separates it from update_fixed_asset and dispose_fixed_asset, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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 'optionally with depreciation settings' phrasing implies the depreciation params are elective, and 'Preview and confirm with the user first' gives a workflow step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. update_fixed_asset/dispose_fixed_asset guidance and no stated prerequisites.

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