vat_rates_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and handles it well. It discloses the mutation behavior (creating a rate), the side effects (demoting existing default when isDefault=true, auto-default when first rate), and the category code semantics. This gives the agent a solid understanding of consequences before invoking.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers edge cases, then adds the reference table for category codes. Every sentence earns its place—no filler, no redundancy with the schema.

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 operation with a rich schema (100% coverage) and no output schema needing explanation, the description adequately covers purpose, side effects, default behaviors, and domain-specific category code meanings. This is complete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds the category code mapping (S=standard, AA=reduced, etc.) and the isDefault behavioral consequences, which is genuinely useful context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does most of the heavy lifting, but the category-code enrichment justifies not lowering it.

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 VAT rate for the active company' with a specific verb (create) and resource (VAT rate). It also explains the default-rate demotion behavior and first-rate auto-default, distinguishing it from sibling vat_rates_update and vat_rates_delete. The e-Factura category codes add domain-specific clarity.

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 explains when this tool is appropriate (creating a new VAT rate) and covers edge cases (first rate becomes default, isDefault demotes existing defaults). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like vat_rates_update, the scope is clear enough given the sibling set, and the behavioral rules give good contextual guidance.

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