Create Vendor

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond 'create'—no mention of validation, duplicate handling, required permissions, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

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 efficient: one sentence stating purpose and requirement, followed by a clear example. The bilingual version doubles length but is still concise. No unnecessary fluff.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, required field, and use context. The example aids understanding of nested parameters. It does not explain return value (assumed from output schema) or error scenarios, but is sufficient.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by reiterating that 'name' is required and providing a concrete example that demonstrates the nested address structure and multiple fields together.

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 vendor/supplier, specifies the minimum requirement (name), and gives usage context (for tracking expenses and purchase orders). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_vendor and list_vendors, and includes an illustrative example.

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 implies when to use the tool (when adding a new vendor for expenses/orders) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_vendor. The context is clear enough given the sibling list.

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