elba_create_act

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful structural context by declaring that items and bank_account_id behave identically to elba_create_bill and that template_id comes from elba_templates, which reduces guesswork. It says nothing about side effects, whether a draft or posted document is produced, permissions, or what the call returns — significant omissions for an unannotated mutation 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?

Five short lines, purpose front-loaded, with each subsequent line mapping to a parameter group — no filler. The telegraphic style is dense but every sentence earns its place. It loses a point only because the compressed cross-references demand the agent already know the sibling tools' payload conventions.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers payload construction but not outcome: it never says whether the created act's id/number is returned, nor how it relates to elba_document_link for later attachment. The sibling routing and field-origin notes make it broadly usable, but an agent must guess at the return value and at required-field prerequisites.

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 partly does: it explains the reason_name/reason_number/reason_date trio as the basis document (e.g. invoice number and date) and delegates items, bank_account_id and template_id to their source tools. It leaves contractor_id (required), number, act_date and with_nds entirely unaddressed — with_nds in particular is a boolean whose effect an agent cannot infer from the name alone.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource ('Создать акт выполненных работ'), which is precise enough for an agent to know this creates a completed-works act document. The final sentence names the sibling elba_act_from_bill, giving partial differentiation among the many sibling tools. It stops short of distinguishing this from elba_create_upd, the other document-creation sibling that overlaps in scope.

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 last sentence gives one explicit routing rule: an act based on an issued invoice is easier via elba_act_from_bill, which is genuine when-to-use-alternative guidance. However, there are no prerequisites (e.g. resolve contractor_id via elba_find_contractor first) and no guidance on when to pick this over elba_create_upd. The agent gets one useful branch but must infer the rest.

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