create_installment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'complex object structure,' hinting at input complexity, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'create'), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., database changes), error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second adds context. There's no wasted text, but the second sentence could be more actionable (e.g., specifying key parameters). It's efficient but not perfectly structured for maximum clarity.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the mutation nature, potential side effects, error scenarios, or what happens after creation (e.g., returns a plan ID). For a tool with high parameter count and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 78% (high), so the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting 'complex object structure,' but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'custom_interval' depends on 'payment_frequency') or provide examples. It compensates slightly but not enough to raise the score.

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's purpose: 'Create a new installment plan.' It specifies the action (create) and resource (installment plan), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_installment_plan' or 'initiate_payment,' which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.

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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Use this to understand the complex object structure required for installment-based payments.' This suggests it's for creating plans with structured data, but it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'edit_installment_plan'), or exclusions. No misleading information is present, but guidance is minimal.

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