Create Company Vendor Business Register

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: it returns the created record with a new id (HTTP 201), repeated calls create duplicates, and failure modes (401 expired token, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolved id) are disclosed. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence provides unique value: purpose, payload handling, id resolution, response status/non-idempotency, error scenarios, required parameters, and API location. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return (new id, HTTP 201) and error payloads. It also covers prerequisite resolution and provides the API endpoint. For a create operation, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional docs.

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 coverage is 100% with good per-parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful invocation semantics: fields are passed top-level and nested under 'business_register' in the payload, and the id parameter must reference an existing parent record resolved via the matching list tool. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the request wrapping and prerequisite.

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 'Create a new Business Register associated with a specified Vendor' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_company_vendor_business_register by explicitly noting it creates and returns a new record with HTTP 201, and includes the exact endpoint.

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?

Provides clear usage context: tells the agent to pass fields as top-level arguments (they get nested automatically), instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, and warns that calling again creates another record (non-idempotent). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is practical and clear.

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