fiken_create_partial_credit_note

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

The description does not add behavioral details beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint=false). It discloses the constraint on lines but omits other traits like impact on original invoice, required permissions, or irreversibility. Given annotations already indicate a write operation, the description provides marginal additional transparency.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the key action and constraint front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks guidance on required vs optional parameters, how to construct the lines array, or what the response will contain. The context of credit note creation in Fiken likely expects more detail about linked invoice and total constraints.

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 only 25% (3 of 12 parameters have schema descriptions). The description adds only one constraint ('Lines must total less than the original invoice') which is important for the lines array but does not explain other parameters like project, contactId, or roundingType. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 it creates a credit note for a partial amount of an invoice, distinguishing it from the sibling fiken_create_full_credit_note. The verb 'creates' and resource 'credit note' are specific, and the partial nature is explicit.

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 provides a critical constraint ('Lines must total less than the original invoice') and implies partial vs full credit note usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the full credit note sibling, but the context is clear.

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