teamleader_subscriptions_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'SIDE EFFECT: creates recurring invoicing for the customer', which is critical behavioral context beyond a simple 'create'. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like whether the subscription can be modified/deactivated later, or whether the creation can be undone. The side-effect disclosure is strong but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: a clear purpose and a crucial side-effect warning. Every word earns its place. It could arguably be a single sentence, but the side-effect is properly highlighted. This is appropriately sized for a creation tool with significant side effects.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 required params, nested line_items), the description is minimal but the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The side-effect disclosure is essential context. However, there's no output schema, and the description doesn't mention what a successful response contains (e.g., the new subscription ID) or any failure modes. Still, for a creation tool with full schema coverage, the critical business side-effect is covered, making it fairly 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds none beyond that; it simply restates the purpose. While the schema's parameter descriptions are adequate, the description doesn't elevate them (e.g., explain relationships between billing_periods and billing_unit, or the consequences of line_items). Baseline 3 applies since schema covers everything.

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 'Create a new subscription' with a specific resource, and the title/name also align. It additionally notes a clear business side-effect (recurring invoicing), which distinguishes it from other creation tools like create_contact or create_invoice. The verb 'create' and resource 'subscription' are explicit and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (when creating a subscription), but provides no guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like subscriptions_update, subscriptions_deactivate, or subscriptions_list exist, but the description doesn't state when to prefer this over them. However, the side-effect warning implicitly signals that this is a consequential action, which is some usage guidance.

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