Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's role is reduced. It adds domain context (HR/operational/financial anomalies) and mentions filtering capabilities, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 bilingual sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides usage guidance and filtering options. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with 6 parameters (0 required), output schema present, and clear annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what anomalies it detects, and how to filter. No missing elements given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into type, severity, period, and gives example values for type (e.g., duplicate_clock_in). This adds context but does not provide syntax or formats beyond what the schema already describes.

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 'List HR / operational / financial anomalies detected by the system', specifying the verb (list) and resource (anomalies). It provides concrete anomaly type examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools which deal with other resources.

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 says 'Useful for daily HR review and compliance audits', giving clear usage context. It also mentions filtering by type, severity, or period. While it does not explicitly exclude use cases, the context is sufficient for this unique tool.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context: the deposit status transitions to 'applied'. Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, which is consistent but not elaborated. The description does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful state-change info.

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 with an example and bilingual text. It is clear and front-loaded, though the Spanish translation adds redundancy for an English-focused agent. Still, it is efficient and not overly verbose.

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 core functionality and mentions the optional invoiceId for applying to an invoice. Given the output schema exists and parameters are simple, the description is reasonably complete, though it could mention prerequisites or error scenarios.

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 parameters are well-documented structurally. The description adds an example but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 applies a deposit to an invoice or marks it as used, and transitions status to 'applied'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like refund_deposit or update_deposit by specifying the action on invoices.

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 an example but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like refund_deposit or update_deposit. Usage is implied but not clarified with when-not or alternative conditions.

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

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

The description details key behaviors: interest calculation based on EU directive, auto-calculation from days overdue, and creation of a debit note. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) align with this, and additional context is provided beyond 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 bilingual, making it longer than necessary. While clear and front-loaded, the duplication of content in two languages reduces conciseness for an AI agent.

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 function and auto-calculation feature. It assumes the invoice is overdue, which is clearly stated. Given the output schema exists, it is sufficiently complete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that amount and daysOverdue can be auto-calculated if omitted, supplementing the schema's override descriptions.

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 applies late payment interest to overdue invoices, calculates based on EU Late Payment Directive, and creates a debit note. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like create_credit_note.

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 indicates the tool is for applying late fees to overdue invoices but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. However, the context of sibling tools implies its specific role.

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

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

Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds that it returns an attendance entry with status 'open' and that mood and location are optional. This provides useful behavioral context beyond 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 two short sentences (plus Spanish translation) that concisely capture the tool's purpose and key details. No extraneous information.

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 simple clock-in tool, the description is complete enough. It covers the basic action, optional fields, and pairing. With annotations and output schema present, additional details are not critical.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description briefly mentions mood and location as optional but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Record an employee clock-in' with optional mood and location, and mentions that it returns an entry with status 'open'. It distinguishes itself from sibling attendance_clock_out by noting the pairing.

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 says 'Pair with attendance_clock_out to close the entry', providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the pairing instruction is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral details: stamps clockOutAt and computes durationMinutes. It explicitly states idempotency, reinforcing the annotation. No contradictions. The description adds value beyond 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 English part is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded. The Spanish translation adds length but serves a bilingual user base, which is acceptable. No filler words.

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 simple tool (1 param, good annotations, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: action, idempotency, and computed result. A minor gap is the lack of prerequisites (e.g., entry must be open). Output schema likely handles return info, so no need to describe it.

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% and the description effectively repeats the schema's description for entryId ('Open attendance entry ID'). It adds no new information about the parameter's format or constraints. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Close an open attendance entry'), the resource ('attendance entry'), and specifics ('Stamps clockOutAt and computes durationMinutes'). It also notes idempotency. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'attendance_clock_in', the verb 'clock out' and the name make the purpose 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 implies usage (closing an open entry) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have an open entry) or contrast with alternatives like 'attendance_clock_in'. The idempotency note is helpful but insufficient for full usage context.

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

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and idempotent. The description adds context about manual classification and tax mapping, but does not disclose overwrite behavior or potential side effects. With annotations bearing part of the burden, this is adequate but not 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 very concise: two sentences plus an example in two languages. It front-loads the purpose and includes relevant details without unnecessary words.

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 three parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential intent and usage. It lacks some details like category validation, but the schema examples compensate. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 parameter descriptions. The description provides an example that clarifies usage but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'apply a category' and the resource 'bank transaction' and the purpose of manual classification for tax deduction tracking. An example is provided, making it unambiguous. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like 'match_transaction_to_invoice'.

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 implies use for manual classification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like automatic categorization or matching. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is clear. The description adds no further behavioral details such as idempotency, limits, or side effects beyond the basic verb and purpose.

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 reasonably concise at three sentences including a bilingual translation and an example. The structure is clear, though the bilingual part adds some redundancy for English readers.

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's simplicity, 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the essential purpose, parameters, and usage context without requiring extensive elaboration.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing a concrete example with parameter values, illustrating typical usage and expected data format.

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 'Add' and resource 'a note to a client', and distinguishes notes as free-form text entries from sibling tools like log_client_activity, which might be more structured.

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 implies usage via an example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like log_client_activity or list_client_notes. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.). The description adds behavioral context: it performs a write operation that reverts an invoice, and in the Spanish market it generates VeriFactu-compliant R1-R5 rectificativa. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying compliance details and the effect on the invoice.

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 concise, with the first sentence front-loading the main action. It includes a bilingual paragraph for Spanish users, which is slightly redundant but serves a clear audience need. No wasted sentences, but length could be reduced for English-only contexts.

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 core functionality and market differences, which is adequategiven the presence of an output schema and parameter descriptions. Missing are prerequisites (e.g., invoice must exist and not be fully credited) and error conditions, but these are not critical for initial selection. Overall complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 bilingual descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add additional semantics for parameters. Per guidelines, when schema_coverage is high, baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a credit note (factura rectificativa) for an existing invoice, specifying it reverses all or part of an invoice for compliance. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_invoice and refund_sale by mentioning market-specific behavior (VeriFactu in Spain, standard negative amounts elsewhere), making its 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?

Description explains when to use the tool: to generate a credit note for an existing invoice. It provides context about market-specific compliance requirements but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide based on the invoice and market.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond stating it records a deposit. It does not mention side effects, auth needs, or idempotency behavior. With annotations covering the mutation type, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise with two sentences in English (plus Spanish translation). It front-loades purpose and requirements, with no filler. Every sentence is essential.

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 10 parameters (100% schema coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description covers core purpose, required params, and example. It does not explain optional parameters, but the schema handles that. It is sufficiently complete for a creation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly highlighting required parameters (clientId and amount) and providing an example with values. This helps clarify usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Record a new deposit from a client' with specific verb and resource. It provides use cases (advance payments, retainers, security deposits) and distinguishes from sibling tools that update, delete, refund, apply, list, or get deposits.

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 explicitly requires clientId and amount, gives an example, and lists use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with alternative tools like apply_deposit or refund_deposit. Still, the intended usage is clear.

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

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

Annotations indicate a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds significant behavioral context: auto-generated invoice number, default draft status, today's date, and support for advanced features like IRPF, equivalence surcharge, series, prepayment, and global discount. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, front-loaded with essential information, and includes a helpful example. The bilingual content (English and Spanish) adds redundancy but is not excessive. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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's complexity (19 parameters, 3 enums, output schema present), the description covers core behavior, prerequisites, defaults, and advanced features. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema. The context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example that demonstrates how to use common parameters (clientName, items, taxRate, irpfRate) and highlights advanced features (IRPF, surcharge, series, prepayment, discount) that correspond to schema properties.

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 'Create a new invoice' and specifies required parameters (client name, at least one line item). It distinctively identifies the creation action compared to sibling tools like get_invoice, update_invoice, and delete_invoice.

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 explicitly states prerequisites (client name, at least one line item) and defaults (auto-generated number, draft status, today's date). It provides an example but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though none are directly relevant.

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

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying required fields (name and unit price) and giving an example. Annotations indicate non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with that.

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 bilingual, which makes it slightly longer. While front-loaded with English, the Spanish repetition adds verbosity. Could be more concise by omitting the Spanish or reducing it.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the parameter schema with full coverage, the description explains the tool's purpose and usage context sufficiently, including integration with invoices and quotes.

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%, so the description's mention of required fields and the example provides additional clarity, reinforcing parameter semantics without redundancy.

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 'Create a new product or service in the catalog' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_products' and 'update_product' by focusing on creation.

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?

It explains that products can be referenced when creating invoices and quotes for faster data entry, providing context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives beyond those mentioned.

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

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

Annotations lack clear hints (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds that the default status is 'draft' and mentions future conversion to invoices, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like permission requirements or side effects beyond creation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and one example. It front-loads the core purpose and requirements, then adds a practical example. No filler or redundancy.

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's complexity (14 params, but schema covers them all) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials. It includes required fields and a future use case (conversion to invoice), but could mention that clientId can back-fill address/taxId.

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% (all 14 parameters have descriptions). The description adds an example showing clientName and items structure, which enhances understanding beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain nuanced parameters like clientLocation or equivalenceSurchargeRate.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new quote/estimate for a client' and specifies required fields (client name, at least one line item), providing a clear verb-resource-action. It distinguishes from siblings like update_quote and create_invoice by mentioning future conversion to invoices.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (initial quote creation) and notes quotes can be converted to invoices. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., update_quote for modifications), but the purpose is well-understood.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds value by noting that the first invoice is generated on the next scheduled run date. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like overwrite rules, permission requirements, or side effects.

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 sentences with a concrete example. Bilingual text adds length but maintains clarity. No unnecessary words, though the example could be more compact. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers the main purpose, parameters, and a key behavioral note. For a creation tool with 7 parameters, it is sufficiently complete, though it could mention uniqueness constraints on templateName.

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 all parameters. The tool description provides an example with values and bilingual explanations, but this adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 new recurring invoice template, with specific verbs ('Create') and resource ('recurring invoice template'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_invoice (one-off) and update_recurring_invoice (modification).

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 implies usage for setting up recurring billing templates and lists required parameters, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

Annotations declare no readOnly or destructive hints, and the description confirms it's a create operation. However, it does not disclose side effects like confirmation emails or immediate channel sync implications.

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 concise sentences in English and one in Spanish, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.

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 10 parameters, nested objects, and output schema, the description covers the essentials but could mention what the tool returns (e.g., reservation ID) or date validation rules.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds minimal info beyond schema, only listing required fields and optional guest data, without further detail.

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 'Create', the resource 'reservation', and the context 'manually (not via channel sync)', distinguishing it from sibling tool sync_channel.

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?

Explicitly notes when to use (manual creation) and contrasts with channel sync, but does not mention when not to use or other alternatives like importing from channels.

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

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description aligns with this by stating it 'logs' a time entry, but adds no further behavioral context beyond the example. Given annotations carry the burden, the description is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentences (plus bilingual repeat) that front-load the main purpose and key parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or wasted words.

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 an output schema (not shown but indicated true) and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects: action, required fields, optional billable, and an example. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention default behavior for userId or billable more explicitly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, explaining each parameter. The description adds value by providing a concrete example (projectId='proj_abc', hours=2.5, etc.), which helps clarify how to format the inputs, exceeding what the schema alone offers.

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 action: 'Log a time entry for a project.' It specifies the required fields (projectId, hours, date) and an optional one (billable). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_time_entries, get_time_entry, update_time_entry, delete_time_entry, and get_time_summary.

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 usage context with an example and highlights when to set billable=true. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation. The description adds a requirement (minimum a name) and includes an example, which enriches behavioral transparency beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail further behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects.

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 efficient with two sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The bilingual repetition slightly reduces conciseness, but overall it is clear and compact.

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 tool has a modest parameter set (5) with 1 required, and an output schema exists. The description explains the purpose, required field, and usage context. It lacks detail on validation or error handling, but for a simple creation tool, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by providing a concrete example with parameter values (name, email, taxId, address), demonstrating the structure and acceptable data. This adds meaning that aids selection and invocation.

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 'Create a new vendor/supplier' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vendors, get_vendor, etc., by explicitly stating the creation action.

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 context by mentioning that vendors are used when tracking expenses and purchase orders, giving a clear usage scenario. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for a creation tool with no direct sibling.

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

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context by listing events and mentioning a signing secret, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., URL validation, test notification sent), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description does not contradict 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 concise and includes an example, but is repeated in both English and Spanish, doubling length without adding value. The structure is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, but the bilingual repetition is not efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main functionality, required parameters, and available events. It lacks mention of permissions or URL accessibility requirements, but overall is sufficiently complete for a webhook creation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing all available events and showing an example with url, events, and secret. It also implies the active parameter defaults to true (schema confirms). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Register a new webhook endpoint' with specific verb ('register') and resource ('webhook endpoint'). It lists available events and provides an example, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_webhook, update_webhook, delete_webhook, test_webhook, list_webhooks.

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 explains what to specify (URL, events, secret) and provides a list of available events. It gives an example usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_webhook), nor does it mention prerequisites or context for use.

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

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

The description explicitly states permanence and irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), which adds context beyond the annotation destructiveHint=true. It reinforces the destructive nature, though the annotation already covers this.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences (one per language), no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and key warning.

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 simple delete operation with two parameters, annotations, and output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the destructive nature and permanence, though could mention if this is a soft or hard delete, and any cascading effects.

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%, with bilingual descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra semantic information about parameters, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('permanently delete a contact') and the resource ('from a client'), with bilingual text. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools by specifying the resource as client contact, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like delete_client_note.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use soft-delete or update instead. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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

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

Description adds 'cannot be undone' beyond destructiveHint annotation. However, it is bilingual and somewhat repetitive.

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 clear sentences in English followed by Spanish translation. No unnecessary detail, but could be slightly more concise.

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 simple delete operation, description and schema are sufficient. Output schema exists but not shown; description doesn't need to elaborate return values.

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 clear descriptions. Description does not add further meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Permanently delete a note from a client' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_client_notes and create_client_note.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or prerequisites. Implied usage is clear but lacks exclusionary context.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'cannot be undone,' reinforcing irreversibility. But no additional context about permissions, side effects, or error cases.

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?

English part is succinct and front-loaded. The Spanish translation duplicates content, adding length without new information, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the action, the irreversibility warning, and the input requirement.

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% for the single parameter 'id'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description, so baseline score applies.

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 action ('delete') and resource ('deposit'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_invoice, refund_deposit), missing an opportunity to guide selection.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like refund_deposit or other delete tools. Lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate use.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds crucial context: 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone', which reinforces the irreversible nature. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches behavioral understanding beyond structured data.

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 concise with two English sentences and two Spanish equivalents. It is front-loaded with the key action. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but still efficient. No unnecessary fluff; every phrase adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description is adequate. It specifies the core action and its irreversibility. For a delete operation, this completes the context needed by an agent, though it could briefly mention the output format.

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?

The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the input schema. The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'id'. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no extra semantics.

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 action ('permanently delete') and the resource ('expense by its ID'). The verb 'delete' and the noun 'expense' are specific, and the mention of 'ID' clarifies the input. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_expense' or 'list_expenses'.

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 implies use when wanting to remove an expense permanently, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_expense' for modifications). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The inclusion of 'This action cannot be undone' hints at caution but is insufficient.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but description adds 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone', reinforcing the irreversible nature. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences in English and Spanish, front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.

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 simple delete-by-ID tool with output schema, the description covers essential aspects: action, permanence, and required ID. No gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with description, but description adds no additional meaning beyond what 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?

Description clearly states the action (permanently delete) and resource (invoice by ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_invoice or update_invoice.

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?

Only warns that action cannot be undone, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., credit notes) or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds emphasis on the permanent nature ('cannot be undone'), which reinforces the destructive behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context beyond what annotations offer.

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 extremely concise: two sentences (plus Spanish translation) that front-load the action and parameter. No wasted words; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, clear annotations, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the action, the necessary parameter, and the irreversible consequence. No additional information is needed.

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 the 'id' parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Permanently delete a product by its ID.' It specifies the resource (product) and the operation (delete), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_product or get_product. The information is 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The warning about irreversibility is helpful but does not constitute usage guidelines.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, providing additional context beyond annotations. No contradictions noted. No mention of authentication or rate limits, but for a simple delete this is sufficient.

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 very short and front-loaded with the key action. The Spanish repetition is somewhat redundant but serves a multilingual audience. Every sentence is meaningful, though could be slightly more compact.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the destructive nature and irreversibility. It could mention prerequisites or error scenarios, but for a delete operation the information is adequate.

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%: the single parameter 'id' is described as 'Quote ID / ID del presupuesto'. The description adds no further meaning or examples beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 action ('delete') and resource ('quote'), specifying it is permanent and by ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_quote' or 'get_quote'. The bilingual text does not hinder clarity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when intending to delete a quote, but lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if deletion is not allowed due to dependencies). No comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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

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

Beyond annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description adds that deletion is permanent, does not affect previously generated invoices, and requires confirmation. 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 concise with two sentences in English and Spanish. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no redundancy, though the bilingual version slightly lengthens it.

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's destructive nature and the output schema, the description covers key aspects: permanence, scope (template only), and safety requirement. It is complete enough for safe invocation.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates the need for 'confirm=true' but does not add new information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is for permanently deleting a recurring invoice template, distinguishing it from deleting generated invoices. The verb 'delete' and resource 'recurring invoice template' are specific, and it differentiates from sibling tools like 'delete_invoice'.

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 explains that it deletes only the template and future runs, not past invoices, and requires the 'confirm' parameter to prevent accidental deletion. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like pause or resume.

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

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

Exceeds annotations by detailing the soft-delete behavior, requirement for confirmation, and consequences (excluded from billing reports but retained for audit). 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 functional but includes bilingual repetition, making it longer than necessary. While not overly verbose, the Spanish translation adds redundancy without substantial value for AI agents.

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's complexity, annotations, and output schema, the description fully covers the operation's effect, requirements, and consequences. No missing context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds value by emphasizing 'confirm=true' requirement, but that is already present in the schema. No additional parameter semantics 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 clearly states the action ('soft-delete') and resource ('a time entry by ID'), distinguishing it from other delete operations by specifying it's a soft-delete. The bilingual text reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly requires 'confirm=true' to prevent accidental deletion, providing a key usage requirement. It implies when to use (for soft-deletion with audit retention) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like update_time_entry.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specific context: 'cannot be undone' and 'may affect existing expenses referencing this vendor'. This provides behavioral transparency beyond annotations, though no details on authorization or return value are given (output schema exists).

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 concise, front-loaded with the key action in English, and includes a warning. The bilingual repetition adds slight redundancy but does not detract significantly. Every sentence provides essential information.

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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behavioral warning. It mentions the main side effect (affecting expenses), which is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single required 'id' parameter. The description mentions 'by their ID' but does not add any additional semantics or constraints 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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'vendor', and specifies the action is permanent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_vendors', 'get_vendor', 'create_vendor', and 'update_vendor' by focusing on deletion.

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 warns that the action cannot be undone and may affect existing expenses, providing implicit usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., if vendor has pending expenses).

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

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

Adds context beyond annotations by stating 'Notifications will stop immediately', aligning with destructiveHint. 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?

Two short, clear sentences front-loading the action and effect. Bilingual redundancy is acceptable for scope.

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 simple delete operation, one parameter, annotations present, and output schema exists, the description fully covers necessary context.

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?

Only one parameter (id) which is fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's bilingual description.

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?

Clearly states 'Permanently delete a webhook by its ID', specifying the verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_webhook, create_webhook, update_webhook, and test_webhook.

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?

Implies use when wanting to permanently remove a webhook, but does not explicitly specify when not to use or mention alternatives like update_webhook for temporary disabling.

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

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

The description details what is copied (line items, client, tax rate, notes) and what is stripped (original ID, document number, status, timestamps), plus the new invoice starts as 'draft'. Annotations (destructiveHint: false) align with non-destructive creation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond 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 bilingual, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized, though the Spanish repetition slightly reduces conciseness.

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's complexity (duplicating with several field groups) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is copied, what is reset, and the resulting draft status. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sufficiently documents parameters. The description adds limited extra meaning: it mentions the new invoice defaults to today's date and allows providing a due date, but does not elaborate on the id parameter beyond what's in the schema.

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 duplicates an existing invoice for a new period, copying line items and client data while stripping identifiers and resetting status. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_invoice (new from scratch) or update_invoice (modify existing).

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?

It explicitly suggests usage for recurring invoices ('Perfect for recurring invoices — duplicate last month's invoice and adjust if needed.'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like create_invoice for new invoices.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that signed XML for Facturae requires a workspace signing certificate and returns a signed download URL valid for 24 hours, which are important behavioral traits beyond 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 front-loaded with key information in English, followed by Spanish translation. While slightly longer due to bilingual content, every sentence adds value and no information is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not cover return values. It adequately covers purpose, format selection, signed behavior, and URL expiration. Minor gap: does not mention potential error conditions or prerequisites beyond cert for signed Facturae.

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%, but the description adds significant value: it explains how to choose format based on recipient country, clarifies that signed only applies to Facturae, and mentions certificate configuration requirement. This goes beyond the schema's enum and 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 the tool exports an invoice as e-invoicing XML, lists supported formats, and specifies the signed option. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_einvoice and validate_einvoice_xml by focusing on generating the XML file.

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?

Provides per-country format guidance (e.g., ES->facturae, DE->xrechnung-cii/ubl) and explains the signed parameter's use case. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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

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

Annotations already convey safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). The description adds important operational details: signed download URL valid 24 hours, CP1252 encoding, and honest backend availability response. These go beyond what annotations specify.

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 informative but verbose due to bilingual repetition (English and Spanish). Key information is front-loaded, but the dual-language text makes it longer than necessary.

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 presence of an output schema and complete parameter coverage, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, available formats, date constraints, encoding, and backend behavior. It does not need to document return structure.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining each format's purpose in plain language, specifying ISO 8601 and inclusive date range, and noting output encoding – details not in the schema.

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 'Export accounting data in DATEV EXTF format' with a specific verb and resource. It lists three distinct export formats, uniquely identifying this tool among siblings (no other DATEV-specific tool).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.