elba_create_upd

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral branch — with_nds produces a UPD with an invoice (status 1), otherwise a transfer-only document (status 2), and that item-level nds_rate overrides the header value — which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about permissions, whether the document is created as a draft, how the number is assigned, or what happens on validation failure.

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?

Four dense, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the document-creation fact comes first and the sibling redirect last. It is compact but reads as a run-on, and the dependency on another tool's schema ("items — как в elba_create_bill") forces the agent to open a second definition.

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 the core semantics but leaves most parameters and the entire return behavior (e.g. the created document id) unstated. An agent can probably construct the happy-path call, but not confidently handle the optional date/reason/bank-account fields.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add real value for the three hardest ones: the items shape (delegated to elba_create_bill plus a "type" discriminator), with_nds, and the nds_rate value set (withoutNds, nds0, nds5, nds10, nds20, nds22) — enum values that the schema does not declare. But number, upd_date, reason_date, reason_name, reason_number and bank_account_id receive no explanation at all.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Создать УПД") and immediately clarifies what the two document variants are via the with_nds explanation (status 1 vs status 2). It also explicitly routes the agent away from elba_upd_from_bill, so it is distinguishable from its closest sibling without opening any schema.

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?

It names an alternative and the condition that selects it: "УПД по выставленному счёту — elba_upd_from_bill". It also states a conditional requirement (nds_rate is mandatory when with_nds). It does not cover when to prefer elba_create_act or when this tool should not be used, so it stops short of a full 5.

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