m3_create_address

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The 'Async import queue' clause is a valuable behavioral trait — it tells the agent results are not synchronous. However, it omits other important behaviors for a mutation tool: validation failure handling, duplicate detection, eventual-consistency implications, and how to confirm the import succeeded.

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?

One sentence front-loads the create intent, scopes the relevant fields, and appends the async behavior note. There is zero filler and no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with 23 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not identify the required 'name' parameter, explain what the call returns, or tell the agent how to check on the queued async import — critical information for an agent that must verify side effects.

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 61%, leaving roughly 9 of 23 parameters undocumented. The description partially compensates by grouping parameters into meaningful categories — business/invoice addresses, banking, credit limits, and maturity terms — which maps onto the schema, but it adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('new entry in the address book'), and enumerates the field scope (addresses, banking, credit limits, maturity terms). This clearly separates it from the sibling list tools like m3_address_book and m3_delete_address by verb and intent, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

A single sentence states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With over 60 siblings including m3_create_account and many other create_* tools, nothing helps an agent decide between creating an address versus an account, a contact, or a stock card, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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