brc_create_supplier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: the tool creates a supplier, does not handle opening balances, uses a two-step confirmation flow, and clarifies that 'passing preflight is not confirmation.' This is sufficient for a create tool. Minor gaps: no mention of authentication, idempotency, or error handling.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states purpose, next sentence states what it does not do, then gives step-by-step usage instructions. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 description explains the confirmation workflow well, but the payload parameter is described only as 'Raw BRC-compatible payload,' which is vague and lacks structure. There is no output schema, and the description only mentions 'confirmation_required' and 'payload preview' without specifying the return format. For a tool with a nested object parameter, more detail on payload structure would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: explains the confirmWrite parameter's role in the confirmation workflow, and gives guidance on when to set it true. This extra context helps an agent use the tool correctly.

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's core action: 'Creates a BRC supplier using a raw BRC payload.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting what it does not do (create/update opening balance transactions) and by describing a unique two-step confirmation flow, which sets it apart from other create tools like brc_create_customer.

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 detailed workflow guidance: first call without confirmWrite, then after showing a plain-English draft and obtaining explicit user confirmation, retry with confirmWrite: true. It also specifies how to handle opening balance input (warn user). However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools or specify when to prefer this tool over others beyond 'creating a supplier,' which is implied.

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