Add supplier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the email uniqueness check, failure behavior on re-add, and that it returns a UUID. However, it does not mention whether the action is destructive, required permissions, or error handling for invalid inputs.

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 fluff. It front-loads the main action, then adds the unique behavioral detail and return value usage, making every sentence valuable.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key points (purpose, unique behavior, return value). However, it omits validation rules, error scenarios, and prerequisites (e.g., need for existing RFQ context). More detail on related tools or process order would improve completeness.

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 only 20%, with only 'categories' having a brief example. The tool description adds no parameter-level explanation beyond the schema. Critical fields like email, company_name, phone_no, person_of_contact lack any descriptive context.

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 clearly states the tool adds a new supplier to AuraVMS, distinguishes itself by noting email uniqueness check, and references a sibling tool (create_rfq) for context. This contrasts with siblings like list_rfqs or place_order which handle different domains.

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 explains that the tool should be used to add a new supplier and warns that re-adding an existing vendor fails due to email uniqueness. It also hints at the output's purpose in create_rfq. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios such as when list_suppliers might be a prerequisite.

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