elba_act_from_bill

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral facts: which fields are copied from the bill, that the basis field is auto-filled as 'Счёт № от', the date default, and the duplicate guard. It still omits whether the act is created as a draft or finalized, how numbering is assigned, and what the call returns — gaps that matter 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core inheritance behavior leads, and the two operational gotchas (date format/default, duplicate rule) follow compactly. Nothing is 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?

For a five-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly, including the non-obvious duplicate constraint. The undocumented number/template_id parameters and the absent return-value story keep it short of complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: act_date gets a format and default, allow_duplicate gets its trigger condition, and bill_id's role is implied by the inheritance sentence. However, number and template_id — two of five parameters — are never mentioned anywhere, leaving an agent to guess their purpose.

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 an act (акт) from an issued bill, and explains that line items, client and bank account are inherited from the bill. This distinguishes it in practice from elba_create_act and elba_upd_from_bill, but the description never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the split from the name alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you use it when you already have a bill and need the corresponding act. The one explicit conditional — a second act for the same bill requires allow_duplicate=true — is genuinely useful routing information, but there is no guidance on when to prefer elba_create_act or elba_upd_from_bill instead.

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