Create Client

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal extra behavioral disclosure beyond creation semantics. It does not detail side effects, idempotency, or permissions, but given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 bilingual (English and Spanish), doubling the text. While the example is useful, the repetition makes it less concise. Two concise English sentences plus equivalent Spanish sentences could be reduced to one bilingual sentence.

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 an output schema, return values are covered externally. The description provides enough context: minimum requirements, example usage, and relationship to invoices/quotes. It reasonably covers the tool's role despite the nested address parameter.

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%, so parameters are described in the schema. The description adds value with an illustrative example (including nested address), which clarifies usage beyond schema descriptions. Baseline 3 + 1 for example = 4.

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 creates a new client/customer, specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_client_contact by noting clients are used for invoices and quotes, which sets 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 specifies the minimum requirement (name) and gives an example of when clients are used (invoices and quotes). However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, though context implies use this for client creation rather than contact or note creation.

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