rm_create_client

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context such as required fields, side effects, uniqueness constraints, or response behavior, so it provides minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately terse, though it borders on under-specification; however, for a simple create operation brevity is acceptable.

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 simple create tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits useful context like the required 'name' parameter, potential uniqueness of client names, or any distinction from other create tools, leaving room for improvement.

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 0%, and the description mentions no parameters. It does not compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to rely entirely on property names and titles. Although the parameters are simple strings, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already shows.

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 ('Create') and resource ('client record'), clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes from sibling update/delete/get/list tools by the action, and from rm_create_client_contact by the resource type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rm_update_client or rm_create_client_contact. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues beyond the obvious 'create a client' action.

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