create_billterm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies mutation with persistence implications, but the description doesn't state whether duplicates are allowed, whether existing billterms can be modified, or any constraints. It does provide useful parameter detail but omits post-creation behavior (e.g., return value, side effects).

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by concise parameter documentation. Each parameter gets one line. No wasted verbiage, though it could potentially be trimmed slightly since some parameter info also appears in the schema.

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?

There is an output schema present, so return-value documentation is not required. The description covers all 5 parameters with meaningful semantics beyond the schema. For a create operation with good parameter coverage and an output schema, the level of detail is adequate and 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, and it does well. Each parameter is explained with its purpose, and examples are given ('Net 30', '2' for 2%). The discount_percent being a string rather than number is explicitly clarified with an example. This significantly exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 'Create a new billing term' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from siblings like list_billterms and create_taxtable. A dedicated sibling create_billterm is not present, but the create/list pairing is clear enough to differentiate.

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 doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update vs create on existing billterms). It does imply the use case through the name and context (creating a Net 30 type term), but no explicit when/when-not guidance or references to siblings is given.

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