Create Client

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

Annotations already cover key traits: readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this: it states the minimum requirement ('Requires at minimum a name') and mentions the entity's purpose. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether duplicate names are allowed, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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 appropriately brief (two sentences plus bilingual repetition) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the bilingual format creates redundancy without adding new information, slightly reducing efficiency. Every sentence earns its place in one language but not both.

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 creation tool with no output schema and moderate complexity (5 parameters including nested objects), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and minimum requirement but lacks details on what happens after creation (e.g., returns client ID), error conditions, or relationship to other tools. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for missing output information.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds only one piece of parameter semantics: 'Requires at minimum a name' clarifies that 'name' is the only required field. This is useful but minimal additional value beyond the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Create a new client/customer' with the specific resource 'client'. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'update_client' (modification) and 'delete_client' (removal) by specifying creation of a new entity. The bilingual format reinforces but doesn't dilute the core 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 context for when to use this tool: 'Clients are used when creating invoices and quotes' explains the downstream purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. 'update_client' for existing clients) or name specific alternatives among siblings, missing full differentiation.

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