Создать акт об оказании услуг

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read, open-world, non-destructive write. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the document is created unposted, the postings generated (Дт 62 Кт 90.01, VAT 90.03), that the settlement account comes from contract settings and is visible in the preview, and the dry-run/confirm safety workflow.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the distinguishing constraint, then accounting behavior, then document state, then the confirm workflow. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 12-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs before calling: what it creates, the required non-guessable key, resulting postings, that the result is unposted, and the dry-run/confirm protocol. Return values are correctly left to the output 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. The description still adds meaning: it stresses that nomenclatureGroupRef is mandatory and explicitly NOT inferred, and it explains that income/expense accounts fall back to the «Счета учёта номенклатуры» register and then to 90.01.1/90.02.1.

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 gives a specific verb and resource («Создаёт «Акт об оказании производственных услуг»») and immediately names the distinguishing characteristic versus the sibling create_act: the mandatory nomenclature group (subconto of account 90.01). An agent can tell this apart from create_act without opening either schema.

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 routes clearly: use this instead of create_act when a nomenclature group is required, use post_document to post the result, and always dry-run before confirming. What is missing is an explicit exclusion — e.g. when to prefer create_shipment or create_invoice for goods versus services — so the guidance is clear but not fully bounded.

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