myob_raw_commit_mutation

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 that the tool 'mutates MYOB', warning of side effects, and requires a valid approval token, an auth requirement. However, it omits details about failure behavior, reversibility, or return values.

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 sentences front-load the action and every sentence adds value: the first states the operation, the second warns of side effects and the token requirement. No redundant filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description must be complete. It lacks information about the prepare→approve→commit workflow, error scenarios, and what the tool returns, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only references the approval token's validity but does not explain what operation_id refers to or how to obtain a valid token, leaving the agent with insufficient meaning for both parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('commit') and resource ('approved raw MYOB mutation'), clearly indicating the action. It also distinguishes from siblings like myob_commit_operation by specifying 'raw' and the need for approval.

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 implies when to use the tool (after a raw mutation has been approved) and states a clear prerequisite ('requires a valid approval token'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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