myob_supplier_prepare_create

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

It discloses the approval requirement and the prepare-before-commit pattern, which are meaningful behavioral traits. Yet, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and omits details about side effects, permissions, or what the preparation creates, leaving some opacity.

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 two short, direct sentences that front-load the core action and immediately follow with the critical approval caveat. Every word earns its place with no wasted content.

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 tool with a free-form json_body parameter, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what data should go into the body, connect to the approval workflow tools (like myob_approval_list_pending), or indicate any prerequisites, leaving the overall workflow fragmented.

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 provides no parameter guidance. While 'json_body' and 'business_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, the free-form 'json_body' object lacks any structure or field hints, leaving agents to guess its contents.

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 action ('Prepare creation') and target resource ('supplier contact'), distinguishing it from update/delete and other entity-specific tools. It also adds the approval context, making the purpose immediately understandable.

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 conveys that this is a preparation step that requires approval before committing, which gives a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tool names provide some implicit differentiation.

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