Create a Crave merchant organization

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

The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations: it creates both a merchant and default location, requires prior login, and will never return a plaintext API key. These complement annotations such as readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true without contradicting them. Parameter-level behavior is left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second provides an essential credential caveat. Every clause earns its place, and it does not redundantly paraphrase schema properties.

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 tool is moderately complex with six parameters and a dry-run/apply flow, but the schema and output schema cover most parameter-level and return-value details. The description fills the important non-schema gaps: authentication requirement, default-location creation, and credential expectations. It does not narrate the dry-run/apply sequence, but that is already specified in the schema's mode and planDigest descriptions.

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 83%, and the schema already documents mode, planDigest, confirmationToken, country, and mintApiKey. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning, except reinforcing that no API key is minted or returned, which overlaps with mintApiKey's const:false. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 new restaurant org (merchant + default location).' This is more specific than the title and distinguishes it from create_location by noting the tool also creates a default location. It is clear, non-tautological, and immediately tells an agent what the tool accomplishes.

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 gives clear preconditions: 'Requires craveup login' and directs users to create scoped credentials in Business Manager rather than expecting an API key from MCP. The purpose statement makes the primary use case obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_location, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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