create_tax_class

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

Annotations are minimal (only openWorldHint: false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that creation is separate from adding tax rates, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action; the second provides a crucial workflow step and a concrete example. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 params, 1 required, no nested objects, no output schema). The description covers the essential purpose, gives a usage example, and notes the next step (adding tax rates). It does not explain return values, but for a create operation this is not critical given the low complexity.

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% (both 'name' and 'fields' are described). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the example 'GST 5%' which hints at the 'name' usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics.

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 'Create a custom tax class' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_tax_classes and delete_tax_class by focusing on creation. The example and follow-up instruction 'After creating, add tax rates to it' further clarify its unique role.

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 clear context: it's for creating custom tax classes and implies a workflow where tax rates are added afterward. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use it, but the example ('GST 5%' for food items) gives practical guidance.

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