lpza_create_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It discloses the creation via 'customer.insert' and lists required fields, but does not mention side effects, uniqueness constraints, authentication needs, or error behavior. The core 'create' action is clear, but additional behavioral context is limited.

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 succinct with two sentences and gets straight to the point. However, the second sentence merely echoes the schema's required fields, making it slightly redundant, but overall it is tidy.

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 tool with 8 parameters, missing annotations, and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It lacks explanations for the undocumented parameters and gives no sense of the return value or operational constraints, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope.

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 only 50%, with four parameters (tel, cell, email, tradingas) lacking any description. The description does not elaborate on these parameters or add meaning beyond the schema's required-field note; it merely repeats the required fields that the schema already declares, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'client (debtor)' and explicitly names the underlying operation 'customer.insert'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like lpza_create_matter.

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 states what the tool does and implies its use for creating clients, but it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this versus alternative create tools (e.g., lpza_create_matter) or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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