Acquire (create + commit)

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

Beyond the minimal annotation (destructiveHint: false), the description discloses critical behavior: it commits a regulated record, is dry-run by default, and requires confirm:true to execute. These are essential for an agent to understand the tool's side effects without over-relying on annotations.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the most critical requirements and execution mode. 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 complex tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the most important invocation aspects: required contact, dry-run default, and confirm flag. It doesn't explain response behavior or all params, but the schema covers many details, and the description gives enough to drive correct usage.

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 description adds meaningful parameter context by spelling out the three allowed ways to supply the required supplier contact (contactId, contactExternalId, or inline contact) and clarifying confirm's dry-run semantics. With schema coverage at 64%, this helps fill gaps and reduce misuse.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('Acquisition'), and clearly states it commits to the A&D book in one step. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_pending_acquisition and commit_acquisition, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly notes this is the 'recommended intake path' and positions itself as a one-step operation, implying when to prefer it over the create-then-commit flow. It also gives concrete requirements (supplier contact, confirm:true to execute). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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