mfc_ca_postTradePartners

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates a trade partner, giving no insight into side effects, authentication requirements, error handling, idempotency, or response behavior. The agent is left without critical operational context for a write operation.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool involves a nested object (trade_partner) and has no output schema, yet the description provides no guidance on how to structure the object or what to expect in return. Combined with the absence of usage guidelines and annotations, an agent would likely struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional context.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (office_code and trade_partner), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, which is acceptable but does not elevate the score.

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 '取引先を作成します。' (Creates a trade partner) clearly states the verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling GET tools (e.g., mfc_ca_getTradePartners) and other POST tools like mfc_ca_postJournals. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any specific sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for creating a trade partner, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. For a tool with many siblings, this is a notable gap.

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