create_master

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never says this writes to Tally, takes a backup, requires a parent for groups/godowns, or what happens on a duplicate name. The only hint of the mutation/backup behavior lives in the dry_run schema text, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and the full type list come first and there is nothing to trim.

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?

Ten parameters, no output schema and no annotations make this the barest acceptable definition—the type list is covered, but parent/category/formal_name usage per type and the write/backup behavior are left to the schema or unaddressed. Adequate to invoke, thin for correct invocation on the less common types.

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?

With 70% schema coverage the baseline is a 3, but the description adds genuinely useful semantics by clarifying that for units the name is the symbol (e.g. 'KG'), which is not obvious from the bare schema. It does not, however, explain how parent behaves for each of the five types.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) plus an enumerated set of resources that maps one-to-one with the type enum, so an agent knows exactly what objects this produces. The enumeration also cleanly separates it from siblings like create_ledger, create_stock_item and create_voucher.

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?

Listing the five supported types implies when to reach for this tool versus the dedicated create_* siblings, but the routing is left to inference—nothing says 'use create_ledger for ledgers' or 'use alter_master to modify an existing one'. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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