create_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a client ID). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Create a new client.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but as a standalone statement, it's efficiently structured.

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 the complexity (a write operation with 6 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and schema coverage of 0%, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which might cover return values), the description lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'email', 'first_name', etc., represent or their significance. With 6 parameters (1 required), this leaves critical information missing.

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 'Create a new client' clearly states the action (create) and resource (client), but it's quite basic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_estimate' or 'create_invoice' beyond the resource name. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what constitutes a client in this context.

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 like 'update_client' or 'get_client', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication. It's a standalone statement with no contextual usage information.

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