Create a new accounts payable bill in KikoBooks by submitting vendor ID, bill date, due date, and line items.
Create a new bill (accounts payable) in KikoBooks. Requires vendor ID, dates, and line items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, yet it only says a bill is created. It does not disclose side effects (AP aging, journal entries), whether billNumber is auto-generated when omitted, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 mutation tool with a nested object payload, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent gets no information about the effects of creating a bill, required permissions, or how the nested bill object maps to outcomes.
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 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate, and it does so only partially by naming vendor ID, dates, and line items. The nested schema itself does describe individual fields (memo, dueDate, lineItems, accountId, taxCode), so the description adds a useful required-field summary but no format or meaning beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new bill (accounts payable)") scoped to KikoBooks, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like update_bill, get_bill, and create_bill_payment. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (permissions, vendor must exist), and no routing advice versus the many sibling creation tools (create_bill_payment, create_purchase, create_invoice). Naming required fields is a light prerequisite hint at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.