create_vendor

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: vendor order emails never include prices, max 10 vendors per store, and the need to route products afterwards. These are important behavioral traits not captured by the annotations or schema.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: creation, required fields, and key behavioral constraints. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most critical operational constraints: mandatory fields, routing workflow, email price policy, and vendor limit. It does not detail return values or error scenarios, but the schema and annotations fill in most gaps, making this adequately complete.

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 67%, with several params already described. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'to' is the email address field, and introduces the concept of fulfillment_vendor_id and vendor_sku for later use. It also adds the store-level max vendor constraint, which is not in the schema.

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 fulfillment vendor' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_category and create_product by specifying the vendor domain. Additional constraints (name, to address) further clarify the tool's purpose.

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 usage context: requires name and 'to' address, and explains the follow-up step of routing products via update_product. It also notes a limit (max 10 vendors per store). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like update_vendor or delete_vendor, which would strengthen the guidance.

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