Create a client (admin)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) the description discloses that nothing is sent unless confirm: true and, importantly, that there is no server-side dry run — a real behavioral caveat an agent would otherwise miss. It does not describe the preview payload or whether the write is reversible.

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 immediately followed by the write gate. The only slightly redundant element is repeating the title verbatim before the endpoint.

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 critical safety gate is covered, but for a nested-body creation tool with no output schema the description never indicates what a successful call returns (the created client, its id) or that the preview response shape differs from the executed one. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent handling the result.

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 67% and both confirm and idempotencyKey already carry their own schema descriptions, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The nested body fields (name, reportingCurrency, timezone) are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 and resource ('Create a client') plus the admin scope and underlying endpoint (POST /v1/clients), which is enough to separate it from clients_list and clients_update by name alone. It stops short of explicitly positioning it against those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus clients_update or clients_list, and no note on prerequisites such as admin role or workspace context. The only conditional given is the confirm gate, which is execution mechanics rather than tool-choice guidance.

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