Create a voucher

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly labels this as a WRITE operation and warns that it changes data, but does not discuss rate limits, authentication requirements, or other side effects beyond the basic mutation.

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 sentences with no wasted words: first states purpose, second explains safe default, third gives critical tax rule mapping, fourth mentions fallback. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 (11 parameters, nested positions) and lack of output schema, the description covers core behavior, defaults, special tax rules, and when to use the sibling tool. It is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping specific taxRule values to real-world concepts (e.g., '5 for Reverse Charge §13b') and noting the default status, which goes beyond the schema's enums.

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 creates a voucher via the specific API endpoint, distinguishes it from the generic sevdesk_call sibling, and provides immediate context on default status and tax rules.

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?

Explains that creation defaults to a draft status for safety and advises using sevdesk_call for anything not covered, giving clear guidance on when to use alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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