open_sale_confirmOpens a VISUAL preview of a cash sale — resolved product names, unit prices, quantities, and total — with a confirm button that fires register_sale. Read-only preview itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Line items for the sale. | |
| customerId | No | Optional customer ID (omit for anonymous sales). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it emphasizes the tool is a VISUAL preview (a UI action, not a data-returning API) and discloses that clicking the confirm button triggers register_sale, an important side-effect. 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 a single sentence that front-loads the key action ('Opens a VISUAL preview'), then efficiently lists what the preview displays and its confirm behavior. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
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 UI-preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the preview content, the read-only nature, and the dependency on register_sale. It does not mention the optionality of customerId, but the schema handles that. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's role in the sale flow.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (items and customerId). The description's mention of 'product names, unit prices, quantities, and total' maps to the items array but does not add new syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Opens' and resource 'visual preview of a cash sale', then lists exactly what the preview shows (resolved product names, unit prices, quantities, total). It distinguishes itself from the sibling register_sale by stating the confirm button fires that tool, making the 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?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: as a visual confirmation step before calling register_sale, since the confirm button fires that tool. It provides clear context but 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as caja_registrar_movimiento vs register_movement, get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, and adjust_stock vs stock_load. The distinctions are not immediately clear from names/descriptions, causing a high risk of misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: mixes English and Spanish (caja_*, emit_invoice, send_whatsapp_*), and uses different patterns (open_*, get_*, query_*, list_*, etc.). Some names like stock_load and bulk_price_update don't follow a clear verb_noun convention.
50 tools is excessive for most contexts, even for a broad ERP-like domain. Many are UI widgets (open_*) that add clutter and could be consolidated, making the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The tool set covers many core business functions (products, suppliers, customers, sales, invoicing, shipping, cash register, payments, integrations). However, there are noticeable gaps: purchase requests have only create (no list/update/delete), shipments cannot be updated/cancelled, and sales lack direct update/query by ID.