ms_create_purchaseorder

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

The description discloses that the tool is a WRITE operation requiring confirm_write=true, and explains the guard/gate error behavior. Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds specific behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the draft nature and the environment variable.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it starts with the tool's purpose, then adds behavioral and usage notes, and finishes with return value info. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or waffle.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists, annotations provided), the description covers behavioral and usage context well but fails to explain parameter meanings. This gap is significant for agents that cannot look up ms_build_purchaseorder's arguments. The presence of an output schema mitigates return value explanation, but parameter semantics remain incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only says 'Args: same as ms_build_purchaseorder, plus confirm_write', without explaining each parameter's meaning or purpose. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter semantics without consulting another tool's definition.

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 clearly states 'Create a purchase order as a DRAFT (applicable=false)', specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ms_post_document by noting that posting is separate, and from ms_build_purchaseorder by mentioning it adds confirm_write.

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 description explicitly says when to use this tool (to create a draft purchase order) and notes that posting is done via ms_post_document. It also warns about the confirm_write requirement and the MOYSKLAD_ALLOW_WRITE=1 environment variable. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, though the context implies it.

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