Create client

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds a minor behavioral distinction ('without also creating a document') but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether a client ID is returned, or any uniqueness constraints). This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key distinction. There is no wasted text, and it is easy to parse quickly.

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 create operation with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It does not mention return values (e.g., the new client ID) or potential errors, and it does not point to related tools for verification. Given the complexity, more guidance (e.g., noting that the client ID is returned and can be used in subsequent calls) 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 40% (name, vatId, paymentTerms, customClientId have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra meaning for the remaining six parameters, such as `paymentTerms` interpretation or `customClientId` usage. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving agents dependent on parameter names alone.

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 action ('Create a new client/recipient record') and explicitly distinguishes it from creating a document. This differentiates it from sibling tools like icount_create_document, making the purpose 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 this tool ('directly, without also creating a document'), signaling this is the right choice when only a client record is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like icount_update_client for existing clients or note any prerequisites, leaving some inference to the agent.

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