suppliers_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the idempotent behavior (returns existing supplier on duplicate CIF), which is genuinely valuable. However, it doesn't disclose auth requirements, rate limits, what happens on validation failure, or side effects. The dedup disclosure is a positive but partial picture.

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 sentences, both informative. The first establishes purpose and requirements; the second adds the critical dedup behavior. No wasted words. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient and to the point.

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 create tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core required fields and dedup behavior. However, given the high parameter count and no output schema, it could clarify what the response contains (created vs existing supplier), whether this creates a companyId, or note that most fields are optional. The dedup note partially compensates but the overall picture has gaps.

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 all 16 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the dedup-by-CIF behavioral note and mentions required fields (name, county, city, address, registration number), which maps to the 5 required schema fields. However, it doesn't add semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new supplier manually' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the required fields and distinguishes from siblings like suppliers_update and suppliers_bulk_delete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other create tools, but the supplier-specific scope is clear enough.

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 states the required fields and the deduplication behavior ('returns existing supplier instead'). It implies usage for manual supplier creation but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. The dedup behavior is useful but the description doesn't specify prerequisites or relationships with other tools.

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