brc_create_supplier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-step confirmation process, the preflight behavior, and that opening balance is not handled. This is detailed for a mutation tool, though it does not mention error states or idempotency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It packs essential information without excess. A slight improvement could be structuring as bullet points for the two-step process, but it remains clear.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or possible errors. The complex workflow is well-covered, but missing what the successful response looks like. Considering the many sibling tools, it is complete enough for its core usage.

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 coverage is 100% but descriptions are minimal. The description adds crucial behavioral context for confirmWrite (when to set true/false) and clarifies that payload is a raw BRC payload. This goes beyond the schema's bare description.

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 it creates a BRC supplier using a raw BRC payload. It distinguishes from sibling tools like brc_batch_suppliers and brc_update_supplier by specifying that it does not handle opening balance transactions. The verb 'creates' and resource 'supplier' are specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use confirmWrite: never on first call, only after user confirmation of a plain-English draft. It also warns about opening balance handling. However, it does not explicitly compare to other supplier-related tools like batch creation.

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