create_bill

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that raw_receipt mode 'splits' receipt positions, but it does not describe side effects, permissions, irreversibility, VAT handling, or success/error behavior for this mutating create operation.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the mode distinction is explained efficiently. 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?

The description adequately explains how to choose between the two modes and the schema supplies the remaining parameter details. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out important context about return values, permissions, and what 'splits them' concretely produces. This is a noticeable gap for a complex creation 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds useful semantic meaning by explaining what distinguishes the two mode branches: ready_split uses pre-split participants with totals, while raw_receipt uses receipt positions with consumers and splits them. This goes beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Create a SplitBill bill.' It then differentiates the two modes of creation, so an agent can distinguish this tool from list_bills, get_bill, and update_payment. The purpose is unambiguous and mode-specific.

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 description gives explicit guidance for choosing mode=ready_split versus mode=raw_receipt, which is the key branching decision for this tool. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the sibling list contains only non-creation operations, so the usage context is still clear.

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