create_sale

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It emphasizes a critical safety behavior: presenting a summary and asking for confirmation before creating the sale, with a specific confirmation format. It does not mention other behaviors like permissions or return values, but the confirmation step is a key transparency element beyond the schema.

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 front-loads the purpose, gives usage triggers, and then the IMPORTANT confirmation instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting with uppercase 'IMPORTANT' draws attention to the critical behavior without wasted words.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential context: the purpose, trigger phrases, and the mandatory confirmation step. It does not explain return values or side effects like stock updates, but for a creation tool, key user-facing behavior is covered. This is more than adequate but not fully exhaustive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only implies calculating a total during confirmation. It does not duplicate or contradict the schema, but also does not provide extra value for understanding the parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Créer une vente / facture client dans ERPNext' (create a sale/customer invoice). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_daily_sales or get_invoice, which are read-only. The trigger phrases further clarify the intent.

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 lists when to use the tool with example user phrases ('vendre X à Y', 'créer une facture pour', etc.). It gives clear usage context, though it does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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