carrel_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that extraction returns a confidence per field and that saving as desk meta fields is optional, but it does not explain permission requirements, overwrite behavior when saving, or what happens when fields cannot be extracted.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the core action, extracted fields, confidence behavior, and optional save. The long field enumeration is justified by the tool's purpose, though it could be structured more scannably.

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 six-parameter extraction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and optional save behavior. It still leaves important context unaddressed, including output format beyond per-field confidence, OCR and root behavior, profile/date-order effects, and sibling alternatives.

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 67%, so the schema already documents several parameters. The description adds meaning for the optional save behavior ('save them as desk meta fields'), but it does not clarify ocr, root, profile, date_order, or path semantics 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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('vendor, invoice number, PO, dates, subtotal/tax/total, currency, IBAN and account last-4') from clearly named document types. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as carrel_inspect or carrel_meta.

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 document types '(invoice, receipt, statement)' imply the intended context, and the optional save behavior is stated. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like carrel_inspect, carrel_meta, or other sibling tools.

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