create_cost_centre

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful domain context (cost tracking use case), but does not disclose duplicate-name handling, parent validation, or other creation-time behavior beyond the schema.

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 single sentence that states the action, gives practical examples, and points to the relevant field on another tool. No wasted words.

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 simple 3-parameter creation tool, the description plus full schema coverage and annotations are mostly sufficient. It could mention duplicate behavior or result shape, but an agent can safely select and invoke it based on the provided 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, parent, and category, including the default for category. The description adds only entity-level context and a cross-reference to create_voucher; it does not meaningfully expand parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Cost Centre in TallyPrime') and gives concrete examples (department, branch, project). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling create_cost_category, though the cross-reference to create_voucher's costCentre fields helps.

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 implies when to use it: when you need a cost centre to tag voucher entries for cost tracking, and it points to create_voucher for related fields. It does not state when not to use it or how it differs from the closely related create_cost_category.

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