m3_create_predefined_entry

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

The description discloses one meaningful behavioral trait: 'Async import queue', which signals the creation is queued rather than guaranteed to complete synchronously. Since no annotations are provided, this adds some transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what the queue means for error reporting, validation failures, or how the agent can verify success.

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 short and front-loaded: the primary purpose comes first, followed by a concise behavioral note. There is no redundant wording or restating of the tool name. It could earn a 5 with slightly more useful detail, but as written it is efficient and readable.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden, but it only provides a two-sentence summary. It does not explain the async import lifecycle, what a successful call returns, what failure modes exist, or how the created entry can be later found via m3_predefined_entries. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently handle the operation end-to-end.

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 100%, and every parameter already has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate to the predefined entry or the async import process, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a predefined accounting entry (predkontace)'. It also adds the async import-queue behavior, which helps distinguish this create operation from a plain synchronous creation. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling m3_predefined_entries, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as m3_predefined_entries for listing entries, or other m3_create_* tools for different resources. There are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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