manage_suppliers

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

The description discloses the tool's destructive nature via the 'delete' action, consistent with destructiveHint=true annotation, and adds context by clarifying what suppliers are (vendors). It also states the return type (dict with success status and data). While not detailing permissions or irreversibility, the annotation already covers the destructive aspect.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, a brief domain explanation, a bulleted list of operations, and a return type. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it remains concise without unnecessary detail.

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 multi-action CRUD tool, the description covers all operations, parameter requirements, and return type, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. However, it does not specify nuances like whether update is partial or full replacement, leaving a slight gap in completeness.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema, but the description adds valuable semantics by specifying that create requires 'supplier_data' with 'name' and that update needs both 'supplier_id' and 'supplier_data'. This goes beyond the schema's generic field descriptions.

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 manages Snipe-IT suppliers with CRUD operations, enumerating all five actions (create, get, list, update, delete). This differentiates it from sibling tools like manage_assets or manage_consumables by specifically targeting suppliers.

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 clear context for each action, including required parameters (e.g., 'create requires supplier_data with name', 'get, update, delete require supplier_id'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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