Создать реализацию покупателю

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the created document is left unposted, what posting would produce (Дт 62 Кт 90, Дт 90 Кт 41), where the settlement account comes from, and that positions can carry content and per-line accounts. It also documents the dry-run default and operationId-based idempotent retry, which is critical for a write tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the unposted/dry-run caveats, and every sentence carries operational information. The parenthetical accounting-entry digression is useful but makes the paragraph dense and slightly harder to scan.

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 13-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the preview/confirm workflow, idempotency on retry, and the downstream posting path. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely without opening other tools.

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 every parameter, including content, per-line accounts and operationId. The description only reiterates that lines may carry content and income/expense accounts and that the contract must be of type «СПокупателем», adding little semantics beyond the structured fields.

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?

Names the exact document type created («Реализация товаров и услуг», shipment to buyer) and its tabular section «Товары», which separates it from sibling sales tools such as create_issued_invoice, create_act and create_services_act. The verb+resource pair is unambiguous and the buyer/contract-type constraint is stated.

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?

Explicitly says the document is created unposted and routes posting to manual 1C action or the post_document sibling, and states the dry-run-first / confirm=true protocol. It does not contrast against create_issued_invoice or create_act (invoice vs. shipment), so the agent must infer the choice between sales document types.

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