Create or update supplier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the create-vs-update behavior, but does not disclose details like response shape, whether omitted fields are overwritten, or any validation rules.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the main behavior and avoids filler. Every word adds meaning.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and very low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not clarify required fields on update, return value, or how the upsert behaves, leaving important context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 15%, leaving most of the 13 parameters undocumented. The tool description mentions only the id's role in updating, and that information largely repeats the schema's own 'Omit to create' description, so it does not compensate for the large coverage gap.

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 operation and resource: create a supplier or update one by passing its id. It conveys the upsert semantics and distinguishes the tool from read-only supplier siblings like loyverse_get_supplier and loyverse_list_suppliers, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 description gives clear usage context: call it when creating a supplier or updating an existing supplier via its id. It does not provide explicit exclusions or compare against alternative tools, but the create-vs-update condition is understandable without extra inference.

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