Settings: create creditor

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'Not idempotent: calling twice may create duplicates,' 'v1 offers no delete endpoint, so a creditor created here can only be updated afterwards, never removed,' and advises checking creditors_list first. This adds meaningful behavioral detail without contradicting 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?

The description is reasonably concise and well-structured with a clear header and bullet-like sentences. The initial generic write note ('🟡 WRITE · creates data') is somewhat redundant given the annotations, but it doesn't detract significantly. Each subsequent sentence adds specific value, and the content is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the complexity (array parameter with many fields), the description covers the key points: usage, array format, non-idempotency, no-delete limitation, and the alternative tool. An output schema exists (though not provided), so return values are likely documented there. The description is complete enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds clarification on the array parameter: 'Takes one or many: pass an array of creditors in creditors. A single record is an array of one.' This explains the required array structure, which is not immediately obvious from the schema alone, providing extra value.

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 creditor account' and 'Use to create one or more suppliers,' specifying the resource and action. It also explicitly differentiates from debtors_create by saying 'For customers you invoice, use debtors_create.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from a key sibling.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to create one or more suppliers,' and instructs to check creditors_list first due to non-idempotency. It names the alternative tool for customers (debtors_create), giving clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use direction. Also explains the array format for one or many records.

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