create_sale_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create a sale receipt.' It does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, downstream effects in Bigcapital, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response will contain. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, but it is undersized relative to the tool's complexity. One sentence with no elaboration is economical, but it does not constitute an appropriately sized description for an opaque mutation operation with a nested body parameter and no output schema.

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 absent annotations, absent output schema, and opaque 'body' parameter that passes through to Bigcapital, the description is far too minimal to guide correct invocation. An agent has no way to know what fields a sale receipt requires, how it relates to customers or invoices, or what success looks like.

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% for the single 'body' parameter, which is described as a request body passed through to Bigcapital, so the schema already provides the baseline documentation. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, and the body allows arbitrary additional properties, but per the high-coverage baseline this warrants a 3.

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 states a specific action, 'Create', and a specific resource, 'a sale receipt', so it is not a bare tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like update_sale_receipt, close_sale_receipt, and get_sale_receipt. However, it adds no scope, context, or elaboration beyond the tool name, leaving some ambiguity about what a sale receipt entails.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_invoice, create_payment_received, or close_sale_receipt. The description does not state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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