onboard_supplier

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

Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely new context: duplicate checks run on name and tax_id, notes is stored verbatim, and bank details are never accepted. It does not say what happens on a duplicate hit (error vs. merge) or what the confirmation code failure mode looks like.

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?

A front-loaded one-sentence purpose, a sharp constraint ('No bank details, ever.'), then a compact Args block. Every line earns its place with no restatement of the schema.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the preview prerequisite is covered. Remaining gaps are the duplicate-check outcome and the failure behavior of an invalid confirmation code, which matter for a non-idempotent write.

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 carries the full burden and largely succeeds: all four parameters are documented, including the non-obvious confirmation_code provenance and that tax_id is duplicate-checked and notes is stored as-is. Only 'name: Legal name' is thin for a field that determines duplicate matching.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource (add a supplier) and states the scoping behavior (to the master, after duplicate checks). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like search_suppliers or create_purchase_order, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 confirmation_code arg line embeds a concrete workflow prerequisite: call preview("onboard_supplier", <these same args>) first. That is real usage guidance an agent can act on. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., use search_suppliers to check existence rather than attempting an onboard).

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