Manager Create

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction exists. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that high-risk resources require explicit user consent and by stating that the operation returns the new record Key, which helps set expectations for the call result.

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 two well-organized sentences: the core purpose and examples come first, followed by the technical shape guidance and the risk-safety instruction. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler.

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 create operation with an output schema available, the description covers the key operational details: what to create, how to structure fields, what to expect in response, and when to seek user approval. The only notable omission is the 'business' parameter, which would otherwise make the guidance fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'fields' in detail, including that it is Manager-native JSON and should mirror an existing record's shape from manager_get, and it implies 'resource' via the list of record types. However, the optional 'business' parameter is never described, leaving a gap in an otherwise useful parameter explanation.

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 opens with a specific action ('Create a record') and enumerates concrete resource examples (invoice, payment, customer, journal entry, tax code), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like manager_get, manager_update, and manager_delete by focusing on creation and returning the new Key.

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 practical usage context: it tells agents to copy the fields shape from manager_get and instructs that high-risk resources require explicit user confirmation first. It does not explicitly name when not to use this tool or direct agents to alternatives, but the create-versus-read/update/delete distinction is clear from context.

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