create_creditor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions a critical behavioral detail: 'Wenn nicht angegeben, wird die nächste freie verwendet' regarding the posting account number, which is important for understanding how the system assigns accounts. This adds transparency beyond what the schema says. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects, like whether creating a creditor requires authentication or what happens in case of duplicate names, but given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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 short sentence that fully communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word adds value. It does not repeat what the schema already says, making it efficient.

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?

Given that the tool has 14 parameters (mostly optional), a simple creation operation, and no output schema, the description is sufficient for understanding its function. It lacks detailed context about the API key environment variable (which is mentioned in the schema), but that is not the description's job. The description and schema together provide a complete picture for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% – every parameter has a description. The tool description itself adds minimal parameter info, but since the schema is already thorough, the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds the useful clarification about the posting account number auto-assignment, which supplements the schema. This justifies a score slightly above the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Erstellt einen neuen Kreditor') and the resource type ('Kreditor (Lieferant)'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_debtor' and 'create_receipt' by specifying the business entity. The description is concise and in the same language as the parameters, which is appropriate.

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 usage for creating a creditor but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_debtor' or 'list_creditors'. The sibling tools are not referenced, and there is no mention of prerequisites or the relationship to other accounting operations. Slight improvement could be made by noting that this is for supplier creation, not customer creation, but that is inferable from the term 'Kreditor'.

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