keel_create_vendor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the core side effect: creating a vendor in the register, and it usefully specifies the return contract (new vendor id and tier). However, it does not disclose whether duplicate names are rejected, whether authorization is required, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on validation failure.

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 two short sentences with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every sentence earns its place: the action and scope are stated first, and the return value is captured in the second sentence. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the action and a partial return value. It does not explain how the optional fields interact, what defaults apply beyond tier, or how errors are surfaced. An agent could make a minimal call with 'name', but would be under-informed for richer vendor creation scenarios.

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 only 43%, so the description needed to compensate for the many undocumented fields (notes, status, website, contactEmail, etc.), but it does not mention any input parameters at all. The schema already describes name, tier, and dataAccess, but the remaining parameters are left unexplained by both the schema and the description. With low schema coverage and no compensation, this dimension is weak.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a resource ('vendor'), and a scope ('workspace vendor register'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also calls out that the tool returns the new vendor id and tier, which is a concrete outcome. This sufficiently distinguishes it from siblings like keel_list_vensors or other create_* tools.

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 a vendor needs to be added) but offers no explicit guidance regarding prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria. It does not name any sibling tool or explain when a different tool should be used instead. An agent is left to infer the usage from the verb and resource rather than being told.

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