pennylane_create_supplier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that (e.g., no warning about duplicate supplier creation, no side effects such as creating a linked account).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the constraint. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is redundant with the schema, so it is efficient rather than maximally informative.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and field formats are covered elsewhere. However, for an 11-parameter creation tool with optional business identifiers (IBAN, VAT, SIRET), the description provides no validation expectations, default behavior, or error conditions, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 all 11 parameters carry their own French descriptions (IBAN, SIREN, SIRET, TVA, payment_method values), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's only parameter remark is 'Le nom est obligatoire', which merely restates the required array; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Crée') and resource ('un nouveau fournisseur'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not need to distinguish itself from a sibling because no other tool creates suppliers, though it also offers no explicit contrast (e.g., vs. pennylane_list_suppliers or pennylane_update_supplier).

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 gives no context for when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of what happens on success. The only guidance is the required-field note, which is already enforced by the schema.

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