Создать поступление от поставщика

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

Annotations only establish non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, while the description adds substantial operational context: the document is created unposted, post_document generates Dt 41/19 Kt 60 entries, settlement account depends on contract settings, and dry-run is the default. It also explains that service lines should carry content, which is valuable behavioral guidance.

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 four sentences and front-loads the core action before covering posting behavior, line content, dry-run/confirm, and supplier/contract constraints. It is dense but every sentence adds useful information without filler.

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 tool is complex with 10 parameters and nested line items, but it has an output schema, full schema descriptions, and annotations. The description covers the key non-obvious workflow points (dry-run, confirm, unposted document, posting follow-up, supplier/contract rule), leaving routine parameter details to the schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic constraints beyond the schema: the counterparty must be a supplier and the contract should be of type «СПоставщиком». It also reinforces that line content is especially relevant for service lines such as delivery.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it creates the document «Поступление товаров и услуг» (purchase from a supplier) with a «Товары» table section. It explicitly states the document is unposted and points to post_document for posting, which clearly separates this creation tool from the posting sibling.

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: this is for a supplier purchase receipt, posting is done manually or via post_document, and creation requires confirm=true after a dry-run. It does not explicitly compare or exclude sibling purchase document tools such as create_received_invoice or create_supplier_invoice.

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