clients_create

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 states this is a mutation tool (create) but doesn't disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether duplicate names/TINs are rejected, what happens on validation failure, or whether required fields beyond name may be enforced conditionally. No return value or confirmation behavior is described.

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 compact at two sentences with the core purpose upfront. It efficiently covers the main value proposition and cross-references helper tools. Slightly more behavioral detail could justify a 5, but the current structure is clean and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 22 parameters (high complexity) with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the creation intent and type distinction well, but lacks disclosure of edge cases (duplicate detection, type-conditional validation, what the created client object looks like on success). For a CRUD create of this complexity, more completeness would be expected.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between company type and auto-fill tools, and groups params conceptually. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters (e.g., what enforces type-conditional CNP vs CUI requirements).

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 a new client, explicitly supports both company and individual types, and names the specific helper tools (clients_anaf_lookup, clients_from_registry) that can auto-fill company details. This distinguishes it well from related tools like clients_update and clients_get.

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 explicit context: it mentions the tool is for manual creation and points to lookup tools (clients_anaf_lookup, clients_from_registry) for auto-filling data before calling. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus other client tools, but the 'manual creation' framing provides clear context.

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