Create pending acquisition

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the minimal annotations: 'Has no ATF effect until committed, so it executes directly (no dry-run).' This explains the immediate execution and non-committal nature, which is valuable because destructiveHint only indicates non-destructiveness. The 'Write.' label further signals a write operation. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise at four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, contact requirement, behavioral nuance, and workflow. No redundant or filler content. Information is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential workflow and key constraints. It explains how the tool fits into the larger acquisition process. However, it doesn't mention the response type or any details about the nested items structure, leaving some gaps for a highly complex 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?

With schema description coverage at 54%, the description compensates by clarifying the crucial contact requirement: 'A supplier contact is REQUIRED (contactId, contactExternalId, or inline contact).' It also explains the role of the items parameter by deferring to add_acquisition_items. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though other parameters like date and note are not individually explained.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a PENDING (uncommitted) acquisition draft.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_pending_disposition and commit_acquisition by emphasizing the draft/uncommitted state and the subsequent workflow (add items, commit). The scope is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it explains the prerequisite (supplier contact required), the behavior (no dry-run), and the workflow ('Add items with add_acquisition_items, then finalise with commit_acquisition'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the workflow context is strong enough to guide correct usage.

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