Create Client

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with a creation operation (not read, not destructive). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not disclose that the API will reject creation without the required is_physical_entity field, that the operation is not idempotent, or any side effects like duplicate checks.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it could be improved by including more useful information without becoming overly lengthy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the key action, but stops short of providing necessary context.

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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, 4 required, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits important context such as the distinction between natural person and legal entity (is_physical_entity), the requirement for a code for legal entities, and how the buyer and supplier flags interact. The schema descriptions partially compensate, but overall the description lacks completeness for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional information.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra detail beyond summarizing the client as buyer/supplier, which is already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new client (buyer/supplier)'. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('client'), and the parenthetical distinguishes that clients can be buyers or suppliers. This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_client, deactivate_client, delete_client, and search_client.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to use create_client vs. other client tools, or scenarios where creation might be inappropriate. For example, it doesn't note that clients with existing codes cannot be created or that certain fields are required.

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