receive_purchase_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It does this well: it flags the tool as LEGACY, IMMEDIATE WRITE, and HIGH RISK, explains that it bypasses INFLOW_ENABLE_SAFE_WRITES, and states the exact write mechanism (appending to receiveLines[]). These are important traits an agent would not infer from the schema alone.

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?

Front-loads the critical risk warning in brackets, then gives the alternative and the mechanism in two compact sentences. 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of warning about the risky write behavior and directing to the safer alternative. Minor gap: it does not describe what happens on success or error, but that may be acceptable for a legacy 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond what is 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?

States a specific verb (receive items), the resource (purchase order), and the exact mechanism (adding entries to receiveLines[] via PUT). It also names the sibling that should be used instead, which distinguishes it from set_purchase_order_receipts and unreceive_purchase_order.

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 tells the agent not to use this tool and to use set_purchase_order_receipts instead, which is a clear when-not/when-to-use instruction. The alternative is named directly.

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