Создать списание товаров

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the document is created unposted with no ledger impact until post_document, and posting yields Дт 94 Кт 41. The dry-run/confirm mention duplicates what the confirm/operationId schema fields already spell out in detail, so it adds little beyond annotations plus schema.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: creation, posting state, posting path, basis document, dry-run. The telegraphic fragment 'dry-run/confirm.' is the weakest element since the schema covers that workflow exhaustively, but nothing is bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the remaining essentials for a mutation tool — that it creates an unposted document, how to post it, and that a basis inventory may be attached — are all present. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents date, lines, confirm, operationId, inventoryRef, warehouse, database and organization. The description only gestures at the inventory basis document, which the inventoryRef field already explains; no additional meaning (units, valuation rules, multi-warehouse behavior) is contributed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (creates the «Списание товаров» document) and immediately qualifies the business meaning as недостача/порча, which distinguishes it from the sibling create_surplus. It also clarifies the document's state (НЕПРОВЕДЁННЫЙ), so an agent knows exactly what artifact it gets.

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 routes posting to post_document and notes that an inventory can be supplied as the basis document, plus a dry-run/confirm workflow cue. It never states when NOT to use it (e.g. surplus goods → create_surplus, returns → create_return_to_supplier), so the sibling routing is only partly covered.

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