elba_create_bill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does: it discloses that the bill is written to the journal, that duplicate (same client + same amount within a week) creation is blocked unless allow_duplicate=true, and the return shape (number, amount, status). It does not mention permissions or irreversibility, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then one parameter per line with concrete defaults and formats — dense but efficient for a 10-parameter tool with zero schema coverage. Some phrasing (the template-oferta warning) is slightly verbose but contributes real meaning.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 10 undocumented parameters, this description is close to sufficient: it covers defaults, formats, the dedup guard, and return value. The missing contractor_id semantics and comment handling are the only material gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the items schema is a bare object with additionalProperties, so the description must compensate — and it does well, spelling out items structure with quantity/unit defaults, nds_rate, bill_date format, number default, template_id, bank_account_id rules, project, and allow_duplicate. The notable omission is contractor_id, a required parameter given no explanation, and comment is never mentioned.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Выставить счёт клиенту') that unambiguously identifies a bill-creation operation, distinguishing it from elba_get_bill or elba_repeat_bill by its transactional nature. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it is not, so the separation is implicit rather than stated.

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 create-a-new-invoice context is clear, and it usefully redirects to elba_templates for template selection and warns the template text may not match the contract. However, it never says when to prefer this over elba_repeat_bill for an existing bill, nor any exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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