mmex_payees_create

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It describes the creation action and lists parameters but does not mention error conditions (e.g., duplicate payee names), side effects, or permissions. It is adequate but could be more explicit about what happens upon success/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 concise, with a single summary line followed by a structured Args block. It is well-organized and easy to scan. Minor improvement could be to inline default values (e.g., active defaults to true) but overall efficient.

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 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the creation action and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks context about return values (even though output schema exists, a brief mention would help), error handling, and database prerequisites. It is sufficient but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. The Args block provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, including conditional notes for db_path and db_key. While some descriptions restate parameter names, they add clarity (e.g., 'Default category ID,' 'Payee number/reference'). This effectively compensates for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new payee in the MMEX database,' clearly identifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mmex_payees_delete, get, list, update, etc.

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 usage by being a create tool, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions (e.g., required database connection). Usage is straightforward but lacks proactive direction.

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