register_sale[demo: deshabilitada] Records a sale for the authenticated business. Creates a full Sale with SaleItems, decrements inventory, creates a CashMovement and Invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Line items for the sale. | |
| requestId | No | Optional idempotency override. | |
| customerId | No | Optional customer ID. Omit for anonymous sales. | |
| paymentMethod | No | Defaults to 'efectivo' when omitted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant context beyond the annotations: it discloses that inventory is decremented, a CashMovement is created, and an Invoice is generated. These are important side effects not captured by the destructiveHint annotation alone. The demo flag also provides operational context.
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, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately states the primary action and target, and the second details side effects. No unnecessary words or repetitions.
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?
The description covers the main behavioral outcomes and prerequisites (authenticated business). However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., sale ID or invoice details), and with no output schema, this is a minor gap. It does not explain the idempotency mechanism (requestId) but that is covered by the annotation and schema.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a meaningful description (items, requestId, customerId, paymentMethod). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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: 'Records a sale for the authenticated business' and specifies the full scope: 'Creates a full Sale with SaleItems, decrements inventory, creates a CashMovement and Invoice.' This goes beyond a simple verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like return_sale or query_sales.
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 of when to use the tool (registering a new sale with inventory and financial side effects) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It's implied that this is the tool for creating sales, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is given.
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.