Belege stapelweise anlegen

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it writes to real accounting data, does not create a posting, partial success is normal, and undo is only a soft delete via bb_receipts_delete with no permanent-removal endpoint. These are non-obvious side effects and limitations that annotations alone do not convey.

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 the core action and batch limit, then efficiently layers in alternatives, side effects, and undo semantics. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 the tool's complexity and the rich input/output schemas, the description covers what an agent needs: scope, rate limit, alternatives, absence of posting creation, real-data impact, partial-success behavior, and reversal limits. Return values are handled by the output schema, so no further detail is required in the description.

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 nested schema already documents every field, format, enum, and constraint in detail. The description adds only the high-level fact that up to 50 file-less receipts are supplied and that each entry uses the same fields as bb_receipts_create; it does not add syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Legt ... an' = creates), the resource ('Belege' = receipts), the batch limit ('bis zu 50'), and the key scoping condition ('ohne Datei', 'beim Import aus einem Vorsystem'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from bb_receipts_create for single receipts and bb_receipts_upload for receipts with a file, so an agent can identify it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('beim Import aus einem Vorsystem'), names the direct alternatives (bb_receipts_create for single records, bb_receipts_upload for records with files), and states the rate limit ('höchstens ein Aufruf je fünf Sekunden'). The conditions selecting this tool over its siblings are explicit.

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