Create Standard Cost Code List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a non-idempotent write operation. The description confirms it creates records and returns HTTP 201 on success, aligning with annotations. It adds minimal context beyond what annotations provide, such as the API endpoint, but no additional behavioral details like permissions or rate limits.

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 multiple sentences, but repeats 'Work Breakdown Structure records' twice unnecessarily. It is front-loaded with the main action, making the purpose clear quickly. Minor redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description lacks important context: it does not explain what a 'Standard Cost Code List' is, what the structure of the 'standard_cost_code_list' object should be (the schema only allows any additional properties), or what the output contains. No output schema is provided. For a tool that creates a potentially complex entity, these omissions make it less complete.

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% (both parameters described). The description lists the required parameters and briefly notes that company_id is a unique identifier, but provides no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers. The standard_cost_code_list parameter is left as a generic object with no structure hints, which is a gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 verb (Create), resource (Standard Cost Code List), and scope (at the Company level). It also mentions creating Work Breakdown Structure records, which while slightly redundant, does not obscure the purpose. The tool is distinct from siblings like 'create_standard_cost_code' (individual codes) and 'copy_from_standard_cost_code_list' (copying).

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 says 'Use this to create a new Work Breakdown Structure records' but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_standard_cost_code' for individual codes or 'copy_from_standard_cost_code_list' for copying. No explicit exclusions or context for selection are given.

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