Create Purchase Requisition

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a state-changing write operation. The description does not add behavioral context beyond summarizing required fields. It misses details like authorization needs, idempotency behavior (already indicated as false by annotations), or what happens on failure. Given annotations, the description adds minimal extra transparency.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value: the first sets scope and constraint (at least one item), the second lists essential fields. No 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?

For a creation tool with nested items and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the additionalFields parameter, return behavior, error scenarios, or provide an example. The schema descriptions are good but the tool description could offer more guidance on structuring the items array. Overall, it is adequate but incomplete.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description reiterates the required per-item fields and the conditional requirement of material or materialGroup, which is already partly covered by schema descriptions. It adds marginal clarity but does not significantly extend meaning beyond 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 the tool creates a purchase requisition, using the verb 'Create' and specifying the resource. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like s4_purchase_requisition_list/get/update by its action and from other create tools (e.g., sales order, production order) by its object. The purpose is 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 for creating a purchase requisition but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., purchase order creation). No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned. The usage is implied but not elaborated, resulting in a score of 3.

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