m3_create_receivable

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

The phrase 'Async import queue' is a meaningful behavioral disclosure, indicating that the create operation is queued and may not complete synchronously. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not explain what happens after enqueueing, how errors are reported, or whether the operation can be confirmed. This is a useful but incomplete disclosure.

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 very short and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact about the async import queue, so both sentences earn their place. It is slightly telegraphic but not redundant.

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?

Given the tool has 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this two-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the operation. It does not explain the async semantics beyond a fragment, nor what response or confirmation to expect, nor how to decide among the many optional parameters. The description is adequate for basic identification but not for confident invocation.

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 71%, so most parameters already have explanatory text in the schema. The description adds little beyond mentioning 'maturity date and controlling vars', which loosely maps to dateOfMaturity and definitionShortcut but does not clarify the four undocumented fields such as documentNumber or variableSymbol. It does not substantially compensate for the 29% schema coverage gap.

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 the operation with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a receivable (pohledávka)'. It also mentions two key attributes, maturity date and controlling vars, which helps distinguish it from related tools like m3_create_liability or m3_delete_receivable. However, 'controlling vars' is somewhat vague and could be more 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as m3_create_liability or m3_create_received_invoice. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The only contextual hint is 'Async import queue', which implies a specific execution mode but not when to choose this tool.

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