myob_customer_prepare_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that approval is required before commit, but does not elaborate on the preparation process, side effects, or error conditions. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

Two short sentences, immediately front-loaded with the action, and no filler words.

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 tool has a free-form json_body and a two-phase prepare/approval/commit workflow, but the description only mentions approval. It doesn't explain what to do after preparation, how to find the required schema, or what the output means. The output schema exists but the overall workflow is under-specified.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'customer contact' which implies json_body contains customer data but provides no field-level guidance. business_id is entirely unexplained.

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 prepares creation of a customer contact, which distinguishes it from sibling update/create tools. The phrase 'Requires approval before commit' also clarifies this is a preparatory step, not a direct creation.

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?

It implies the use case is to initiate a customer creation that needs approval, distinguishing it from direct commit operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or the follow-up approval/commit tools, so usage context is clear but not exhaustive.

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