create_taxtable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: entries must reference ASSET or LIABILITY accounts, all entries must share the same commodity, and percentages are expressed as rates ('5.00' = 5%, not '0.05'). This is substantial behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (overview, Args, Example). The overview and Args sections are informative without redundancy. Slightly long but every sentence adds value — the example is helpful and the rate-format caveat is important. Could trim the asset/liability explanation marginally.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations, the description thoroughly covers purpose, entry structure, account constraints, commodity requirement, and provides a complete executable example. The output schema exists but the description needn't cover return values. Handles the complexity well.

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 0% and the schema gives only bare types (string name, array of objects). The description fully compensates by defining the 'entries' structure ({type, amount, account}), the allowed type values ('value' or 'percentage'), the amount format, account address forms (path, %short-guid, GUID), and account type constraints. This is excellent parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a new sales-tax table, explains that a taxtable holds entries, and provides the composition model (percentage rate or flat-value surcharge per GL account). It distinguishes from siblings like update_taxtable and list_taxtables by the 'create' verb.

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?

Explains what a taxtable is and how entries contribute, noting multi-entry composites produce multiple tax splits at posting time. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives like update_taxtable, nor state preconditions like whether accounts must already exist in the book.

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