ratiba_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: the customer approval via M-Pesa prompt and the unique standing order name requirement. However, it omits other relevant behavioral traits such as synchronous/asynchronous behavior, error handling, or return value details, leaving gaps.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and use cases. There is no redundant fluff, and every sentence provides useful information.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and a couple of constraints but lacks key operational details such as what happens after creation, whether it is asynchronous, and what the response format is. It is sufficient for basic selection but not 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 64%, and most parameter descriptions are present. The description adds some context (e.g., standing order name uniqueness is repeated from schema), but it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters like callbackUrl, shortCode, transactionDesc, and accountReference. The added value is marginal beyond the schema.

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 the tool creates an M-Pesa Ratiba standing order for recurring collection, with specific use cases. It uses a clear verb and resource, but does not distinguish from the sibling tool ratiba_create_and_wait, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (recurring collections like subscriptions, loan repayments), but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling ratiba_create_and_wait is not mentioned, so usage guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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