merit_create_vendor

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 discloses the HTTP method (POST), endpoint, uniqueness constraint and max length for name, required fields, and the return shape { Id, Name }. This goes beyond what the schema provides, though it omits error behavior and permission requirements.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then packs constraints and return information into a compact, readable format. 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?

For a tool with 17 parameters, 29% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It identifies required fields and return shape, but leaves the purpose and constraints of most optional parameters unexplained, which could lead an agent to generate invalid or semantically wrong requests.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate for 14 undocumented parameters. It adds value for 'name' by specifying uniqueness and max 150, and it restates required fields, but it does not clarify the meaning or acceptable values for fields like vendorType, paymentDeadLine, overDueCharge, or bankAccount. The compensation is minimal relative to the number of undocumented parameters.

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 identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('Merit Aktiva vendor'), and includes the exact endpoint for disambiguation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like merit_update_vendor, merit_list_vendors, and merit_create_vendor_group without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 create operation and required fields, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as merit_update_vendor or merit_list_vendors. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and the word 'Create'.

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