create_counterparty

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Create a new counterparty' without mentioning side effects, idempotency, required fields beyond what the schema already shows, or any post-creation behavior. This is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the name.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides a single, useful parameter hint. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention that 'name' is required, any uniqueness constraints, or what response the caller should expect. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the description does not provide sufficient behavioral context for a mutation 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?

The schema describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the values for companyType ('legal', 'entrepreneur', 'individual'), but these are already enumerated in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning.

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 counterparty' using a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_counterparties and get_counterparty. The additional instruction about companyType reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description: use it when creating a counterparty. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives might be more suitable, such as get_counterparties for reading or update tools for modifying. The companyType instruction is parameter guidance, not tool selection guidance.

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