create_partner

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 merely says 'create' and provides no information about side effects, state mutation, error behavior, idempotency, or permission requirements. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 short and under-specified. While there is no redundant text, it omits nearly all useful context, so this is not conciseness but sparse inadequacy.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 2 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line tautology is completely insufficient. The agent cannot understand what a partner is, how company_id relates to the creation, or what the expected outcome is, making safe invocation unlikely.

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% — all 7 parameters have Japanese descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no parameter detail, but the schema already carries that weight, so the baseline of 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 '取引先を作成' is essentially a Japanese restatement of the tool name 'create_partner' and offers no definition of what a 取引先 (business partner) is in this system. It states the verb and resource but is tautological, providing no differentiation from siblings like create_deal or create_invoice.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_partners or create_deal. The description only states the action and gives no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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