scf_create_vendor_certification

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is a write operation and defines the editor role requirement, and notes status default and expiry tracking. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is additive/substitutive or if it affects existing vendor data, but this is minor given annotations are clear about mutation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and examples, then key behavioral notes. Efficient and no filler. Could add a bit more on usage but it's concise enough.

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?

Tool is a straightforward create with 10 params, all well-documented in schema, and no output schema required. Annotations cover mutation. This is adequate but lacks any mention of error conditions or idempotency, and the absence of output schema means the agent doesn't know what response to expect. However, given it's a simple create, it's 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides details for all 10 parameters (e.g., org_id source, date format). The description adds the default for status and the purpose of expiry_date (renewals), but does not go beyond schema for most fields, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Record'), resource ('vendor certification'), and purpose ('a vendor holds'), with examples ('ISO 27001 or SOC 2'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like scf_update_vendor_certification and scf_list_vendor_certifications.

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 it (recording a new certification) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or when to prefer scf_update_vendor_certification (e.g., for changing existing certifications). No clear exclusions or alternative routing.

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