myob_raw_prepare_mutation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical behavior: this tool only prepares the request and delays any actual API call until later approval and commitment. It also implies an approval mechanism, which is key context. However, it doesn't disclose details about validation, request storage, or the exact meaning of 'approved' and 'committed' in relation to sibling tools.

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 consists of exactly two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the primary purpose, and the second adds a crucial behavioral constraint. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary repetition, making it well-structured and efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex (7 parameters, raw API access, two-phase workflow) and the description is too sparse. It does not explain the approval/commitment process, how to correlate with myob_raw_commit_mutation or approval tools, or what happens to the prepared request. It also lacks parameter guidance, making it incomplete for a tool of this scope.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds a little semantic meaning by restricting method to POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE, but it provides no explanation of path, json_body, risk_level, business_id, or params. The parameter titles in the schema are thin, and the description does not clarify required values, defaults, or how they interact. This is a significant gap that the description fails to fill.

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 action: 'Prepare any MYOB POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE request.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes this raw mutation preparation tool from sibling read tools (myob_raw_get) and commit tools (myob_raw_commit_mutation, myob_commit_operation). It also differentiates from entity-specific prepare tools by emphasizing 'any' request.

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 this tool via the phrase 'does not call MYOB until approved and committed,' which indicates a preparation step in a larger workflow. However, it provides no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as 'use entity-specific prepare tools when available' or 'use this for endpoints not covered by other tools.' The guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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