expiries_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 of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses the notification side effect: members receive expiry.due reminders remindDaysBefore days before, then 7, 1, and 0 days. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the disclosed behavior adds real value beyond the schema.

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 a single dense sentence with no wasted words and useful information front-loaded at the start. However, the long list of kinds makes it a run-on that could be easier to scan with a list or short separate sentence.

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 description covers the core purpose and the main notification behavior, which is helpful for a create operation. However, for a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, it omits when to use alternatives, prerequisites like the STORNO_COMPANY_ID fallback, and any mention of what happens after creation. The schema fills many gaps, so this is adequate 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 coverage is 80%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the kind taxonomy, distinguishing vehicleId-based items from company-level items, and clarifying how remindDaysBefore drives the notification cascade. It still leaves some parameters like validFrom and notes to the schema, but the added context is substantive.

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 states a concrete action ('Record something with an expiry date') and names the resource domain. It enumerates all supported kinds and clarifies vehicle-level versus company-level items, which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily distinguished from expiries_list/get/update/renew/delete siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as expiries_update or expiries_renew. The description implies creation but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different expiry tool should be chosen.

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