Create sales tax

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint: abbreviation must be unique within the business. However, it does not explain duplicate-handling behavior, permission requirements, or what happens on success beyond creating the tax.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the core action first and the key constraint second. The max-length mention slightly duplicates the schema, but the uniqueness detail is a valuable addition and no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the primary action and one important validation rule, but lacks detail on error behavior, required permissions, and expected response or created-tax lifecycle.

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 56%, with useful descriptions for rate, businessId, taxNumber, isCompound, and isRecoverable. The description only adds the abbreviation uniqueness rule and repeats the max length constraint. It does not compensate for undocumented parameters such as name, description, and showTaxNumberOnInvoices.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a sales tax.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wave_list_sales_taxes, wave_get_sales_tax, wave_update_sales_tax, and wave_archive_sales_tax. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the CRUD distinction is unambiguous from the name and description.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage-related detail is the abbreviation uniqueness constraint, which is a validation rule rather than selection guidance.

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