spraay_sctp_supplier

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

Description discloses the call cost ($0.02 USDC), which is useful beyond annotations. However, no details on side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or return behavior. Annotations provide some context but description adds only cost.

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?

Two short sentences with front-loaded purpose. Minimal and efficient, no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite output schema existence, the description lacks context on registration outcomes, prerequisites, or process. For a registration tool with 3 parameters, more is needed (e.g., what a supplier is, what happens on success). Incomplete for a write operation.

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 baseline 3. Description adds no meaningful parameter information beyond 'Provide the listed fields as typed arguments', which is generic. Parameter names are self-explanatory but no extra semantics.

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 'Register supplier' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like spraay_sctp_supplier_by_id, so purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Only cost is mentioned, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use context.

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