create_income

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint: true. The description adds a confirmation prompt and a warning icon, which reinforce the destructive nature but do not explain what is destroyed or any side effects (e.g., irreversible changes, authorization requirements). Behavioral context remains minimal.

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 very short, which makes it concise, but the structure is flat and overloaded: a single line of warning followed by dense field listings. It could be more efficient by using bullet points or separating concerns, but it does not waste 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?

Given 8 parameters, 3 required, and no schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain required parameters (e.g., customer), optional parameters (e.g., date), or how to structure the array parameters. An output schema exists, but this does not excuse the lack of input guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It lists field names for income_lines, charges, and document_type, but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'concept', 'imputation', or 'destination_account' are). Many top-level parameters (customer, date, document_number, annotations, tags) are not mentioned at all.

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 'Crea un ingreso' which clearly indicates the tool creates an income record, but it does not differentiate from siblings like create_invoice or create_expense. The purpose is minimally clear but lacks specificity to avoid confusion with similar creation tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is 'Confirmar con usuario', which is a safety instruction, not a usage condition. No exclusions or context for appropriate use are given.

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