upsert_vendor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a legacy immediate (non-deferred) write, that it is high risk, and that it bypasses the INFLOW_ENABLE_SAFE_WRITES gate. It does not explain concurrency behavior (the timestamp parameter) or whether the write can be undone, so it falls short of a full behavioral profile.

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?

Three short fragments, with the risk warning and the recommended alternative front-loaded ahead of the plain functional statement. 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?

For a 13-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the highest-value missing context (risk level and the alternative tool), and the schema covers all parameters. Remaining gaps — response shape after create vs update and concurrency handling — are minor but real.

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 100% and all 13 parameters (including the nested address and contacts objects) are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that — it never mentions id-required-for-update semantics itself.

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 the exact operation (upsert of a vendor, create-or-update) and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling set_vendor by marking itself legacy and risky. An agent can tell which of the two vendor-write tools to pick without opening either schema.

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?

"Use set_vendor instead" is an explicit, unambiguous routing directive naming the preferred alternative, plus the condition (this one bypasses safe writes) that explains why. Nothing is left to inference.

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