m3_create_wage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a key trait — 'Async import queue' — which signals that the call enqueues work rather than returning a completed record immediately. However, it does not mention permissions, failure modes, or what happens after enqueueing, so the disclosure is only partial.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, the domain, and the async behavior with no wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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?

The schema fully documents all 8 parameters, and the description conveys the core purpose and async nature of the operation. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without information about the response shape or how to verify the enqueued import succeeded. For a create operation with side effects, this is a moderate gap.

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%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 ('a wage record'), and adds the domain context 'for payroll processing' with the local term 'mzdovy doklad.' This clearly distinguishes it from other create tools in the sibling list, such as create_activity or create_received_invoice.

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 phrase 'for payroll processing' provides clear context on when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the payroll-specific purpose is sufficient for an agent to route to this tool versus the many other m3_create_* siblings.

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