Set up the company profile

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, and the description usefully adds that it operates on the local profile and 'Nothing is sent to SEF' — the single most important side-effect boundary. The two-phase preview/confirm flow also clarifies reversibility risk. It leaves open what happens to existing fields on update and whether the confirmCode expires.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: capability first, then the confirmation protocol, then the side-effect boundary. No repetition of schema or title 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 13-parameter nested mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the critical operational facts — preview flow, local-only effect, confirmCode handling. Since the preview presumably conveys the return shape, the absence of output details is acceptable. Optional fields like numberPattern and paymentDueDays rely on schema text alone.

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 77% and the nested defaultTax and bankAccount descriptions already carry format and default-rule detail in-schema. The description only adds meaning for confirmCode's role in the two-step flow, which the schema description also gestures at. Baseline 3 is right for high coverage where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the specific action and resource: 'Creates or updates the seller (your company) in the local profile'. An agent can immediately tell this is the write-side counterpart to setup/checking tools. It stops short of naming a sibling such as sef_check_setup, so differentiation is implied by scope rather than stated.

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?

It gives a concrete call protocol: invoke without confirmCode to obtain a preview and code, show the preview to the user, then re-invoke with identical values plus the code only after confirmation. That is genuine when-and-how guidance. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over sef_check_setup or what to do if a profile already exists.

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