Create client

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, offering little behavioral context. The description does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., sending verification emails), required permissions, behavior when a client already exists, or what happens when has_login is true vs false. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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, with three short sentences that each contribute meaningful information. It front-loads the primary purpose and efficiently covers required inputs, optional login credentials, and the use of the 'extra' field.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic usage but lacks critical context. It does not mention what the API response contains, edge cases like duplicate emails or invalid brand IDs, or any prerequisites. While the description is adequate for a simple invocation, it is incomplete for a complex mutation tool of this size.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds guidance about using 'extra' for additional fields, but misleadingly includes currency_code as an example when it is already a direct schema property, causing confusion about where to pass it. It also says 'Provide email + name' while only email is required by the schema, implying name is required when it isn't.

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's action ('Create a new client under a brand') and distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_lead or update_client by identifying the resource (client) and context (under a brand). It also specifies key inputs, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives implied usage by explaining that email and name are required and login credentials are optional, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like create_lead or convert_lead_to_client. No when-to-not-use or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the user to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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