Create Credit Note

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the tool creating a credit note (a write operation) and details market-specific behavior (R1-R5 for Spain, standard negative amounts elsewhere), which goes 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 front-loaded with English then Spanish. It is slightly verbose due to bilingual content but each sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but structure is clear.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two main use cases (Spanish rectificativa vs standard credit note) and the reasoning behind the action.

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 for all 5 parameters. The description adds bilingual context but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 identifies the tool's action (create a credit note), the resource (existing invoice), and distinguishes between Spanish market (VeriFactu-compliant rectificativa) and other markets (standard credit note). The sibling tools include create_invoice and other creation tools, making this distinct.

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 mentions reversing invoices for compliance but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_deposit or refund_sale. It does not state when not to use it or provide comparisons with siblings.

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