brc_create_sales_credit_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses the two-phase confirmWrite mechanism (first call returns confirmation_required and payload preview, retry with confirmWrite only after explicit user confirmation), the need for explicit counterparty confirmation, and that preflight is not confirmation. It does not, however, mention potential errors, rate limits, or destructive consequences of creating a credit note, but given the complexity, the disclosed behaviors are thorough.

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 dense but somewhat verbose, containing multiple instructions in prose form without visual separation. It front-loads the purpose but then packs requirements in long sentences. While every sentence adds value, a more structured format (bullets or short paragraphs) would improve readability for an agent. It is concise relative to the complexity but could be better organized.

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 23 parameters, 19 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the creation workflow, prerequisites, confirmation steps, and handling of missing data (e.g., listing sales reps). It is quite complete, but it doesn't describe the success response format or any post-creation steps. For a high-complexity tool, this is strong.

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 26%, but the description significantly compensates by explaining many key parameters: reference (conditionally required), saleRepId/saleRepCode (must be from brc_list_sales_reps and not default), analysisCategoryId/accountCode (must be from Sales Analysis category, not defaulted), and the three confirm parameters with precise conditions. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. However, some parameters like productId, customerId, etc. are not explained beyond basic type info.

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 it creates a BRC sales credit note using structured MCP fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'brc_create_sales_credit_note_gen_ref' by explicitly noting when to use each based on manual reference configuration. The verb 'creates' and resource 'BRC sales credit note' are specific and 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 extensive usage guidance: when to prefer this tool over the gen_ref variant, requirements for saleRepId/saleRepCode (and not to use default/demo values), requirements for analysisCategoryId and accountCode, conditions for setting confirmCrAnalysisCategory, confirmWrite, and confirmCounterpartyExplicit. It also instructs the agent to list or ask for missing sales reps. This is exceptional context for correct tool invocation.

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