create_credit_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only restates the purpose (create a credit note from an invoice) without disclosing side effects on the source invoice (e.g., reversal effects on accounting), required permissions, or return behavior. The schema hints at 'contrepasser' but the description does not elaborate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant words. Exceptionally concise without losing meaning.

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 financial mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks essential context about side effects, preconditions (e.g., invoice must be validated), and what the call returns. Given the complexity of invoice/accounting operations, this is a significant gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context (that the credit note is derived from an existing invoice) but does not go beyond the schema's descriptions for either 'source_invoice_id' or 'description'.

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?

Description clearly states 'Créer un avoir (facture de crédit) à partir d'une facture existante' – a specific verb (créer) + resource (credit note) + scope (from an existing invoice). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_invoice by explicitly requiring a source invoice.

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?

Usage is implied: you need an existing invoice ID. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like the source invoice's validation status. With many invoice-related siblings, clearer direction would help.

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