elba_track_bill

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation. It does add real context by clarifying that this registers an already-existing external bill into the journal rather than creating a bill, but it says nothing about idempotency, what happens if the bill is already tracked, required permissions, or failure modes.

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?

One tight sentence with the qualifying scope front-loaded after the action; nothing is padded. It is efficient but very short for a mutation whose semantics are non-obvious.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and two undocumented parameters needs more: what the journal entry becomes, whether the call is idempotent, and how bill_id/ project are interpreted are all missing. An agent can guess the intent but not call it safely.

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 does not. Neither bill_id (is it an Elba ID, an external document number, an INN-scoped identifier?) nor the optional project parameter is explained anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb ('Добавить в журнал' – add to the journal) plus the resource (a bill) and a scope qualifier: bills not issued through this server. That implicitly separates it from elba_create_bill, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred 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?

It clearly states the situation that selects this tool: bills entered manually in Elba or that predate the journal. It does not explicitly say 'do not use for new bills – use elba_create_bill instead', leaving the exclusion to be inferred from the scope phrase.

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