m3_create_liability

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the async import queue behavior, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, queue semantics, whether validation is synchronous, or what happens on failure. This is partial but not rich behavioral transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second flags async behavior. However, the phrase 'controlling vars' is jargon and could be clearer without much added length.

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 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief to fully instruct an agent. It does not explain the async queue workflow, required input semantics, how to track the operation, or what response/confirmation to expect, so an agent would still face significant uncertainty.

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 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only minimal parameter context by mentioning 'maturity date' and vaguely referring to 'controlling vars'; it does not meaningfully explain the purpose of most parameters beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a liability') and adds the Czech term 'závazek/payable', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like m3_create_receivable and m3_liabilities. It also mentions key attributes (maturity date, controlling vars), leaving little ambiguity about the tool's job.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as m3_create_receivable or m3_create_issued_invoice. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected or which sibling tools to prefer in different scenarios.

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