save_asset_movementsSave fixed-asset movements (additions, deletions, depreciation charge, depreciation on deletions) per gross-block line for the PPE schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | Yes | The entity (client) id — from list_clients. | |
| movements | Yes | ||
| period_id | Yes | ||
| template_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about the content being saved (movements per gross-block line) but does not disclose any additional behavior such as whether existing data is overwritten, validation rules, or prerequisites like an open period. It does not contradict the 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 a single sentence with no filler. It communicates the verb, object, scope, and specific movement types efficiently, making every word meaningful.
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 has 4 required parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits information about side effects (e.g., overwriting), return values, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool with destructive potential.
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 25%, with only client_id having a description. The description compensates by explaining the movement types (additions, deletions, depreciation charge, depreciation on deletions) which map directly to the nested object properties, and 'per gross-block line' clarifies gross_leaf_code. However, it does not explain period_id or template_id in detail, though their purpose is inferable.
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 verb 'save' and the specific resource 'fixed-asset movements' with enumerated movement types (additions, deletions, depreciation charge, depreciation on deletions). It also scopes to 'per gross-block line for the PPE schedule,' which distinguishes it from sibling save tools like save_provision_movements or save_reserves_movements.
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 phrase 'for the PPE schedule' implies a usage context, and the title/name clearly indicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action — get_* reads, save_* writes, confirm_* approves, preview_* shows consequences before approval. Even the management-data trio (budgets, allocations, variance) is cleanly separated by surface. Two-step flows like preview_chart_rebaseline → confirm_complete_chart are clearly sequenced, so an agent won't confuse the stages.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern: get_* for reads, list_* for discovery, save_* for section writes, confirm_* for approvals, create_* for new entities/centres, preview_* for pre-approval checks. The few one-offs (ingest_upload, upload_trial_balance, set_header_row) still fit the verb-first convention. No camelCase or style mixing.
At 67 tools this is well past the 'too many' threshold. While the Schedule III domain genuinely is broad — statutorily mandated sections, two-phase approval flows, readiness checks, and a separate management-data area — the surface is heavy; an agent will spend real effort just surveying the tool list. Some consolidation of the save_reserves/provisions/assets movements or merging preview+confirm pairs is possible.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: upload → mapping/costing → grouping → capture (all statutory sections) → declarations → readiness → generate → finalise → download, plus entity setup and consolidated statements. Minor gaps: no tool directly exposes historical version diffing beyond list_snapshots, and the management-data section (budgets, allocations, variance) feels bolted on rather than integral to the core flow.