post_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool generates register movements, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on reversibility, idempotency, permission requirements, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is moderate coverage.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action ('post document') immediately. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary detail.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides only basic information. It covers the primary action but omits side effects, return values, error states, or preconditions. For a simple mutation tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the schema (full_name: document type, guid: UUID). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Провести документ. Формирует движения по регистрам' (Post document. Generates movements on registers). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the tool name strongly hints at the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'unpost_document' (reverse operation) and other document-related tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to avoid it. It does not reference alternatives or prerequisites. However, the tool name and sibling list imply it's for posting documents, but no further guidance is provided.

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