merit_create_fixed_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable context by disclosing the API endpoint, the required fields, the numeric mapping for deprCalcMethod, and the non-obvious wire-format spellings 'InventaryNo' and 'FAFroupName'. It does not disclose response behavior, idempotency, or error handling, which would strengthen a mutation tool, but it goes well beyond a bare 'Create fixed assets' statement.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the operation and endpoint, listing required fields, and documenting enum values plus the spelling caveat. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The description covers core input guidance and a critical quirk, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations, so more context is needed about return values, error behavior, or partial failure handling. Optional fields beyond inventoryNo, name, and deprCalcMethod are not mentioned, leaving uncertainty about whether additional properties are accepted. For a single-parameter create tool the essential payload guidance is present, but the operational context is incomplete.

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 input schema only says 'fixedAssets' is an array of objects, leaving the item structure entirely undefined. The description compensates by specifying that each asset needs inventoryNo and name, explaining the deprCalcMethod enum values, and calling out the exact wire spellings. This is essential meaning that the schema alone cannot convey.

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 opens with the operation 'Create Merit Aktiva fixed assets' and includes the exact endpoint, making the action and target resource unambiguous. It names required fields, which clearly distinguishes this creation tool from sibling read-only tools like merit_list_fixed_assets. The specificity leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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?

When to use this tool is implied by the name and 'Create' verb, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as merit_list_fixed_assets or merit_list_fixed_asset_locations. The description focuses on how to build the payload rather than when to select this tool over siblings. An agent could infer usage, but the tool would benefit from an explicit 'use this when creating fixed assets' statement.

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