po_from_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: read-only ('It creates nothing'), validation of every vendor and product against EBMS, and idempotency guaranteed by ebms_write refusing duplicate EXTERNALID. It does not say what a draft looks like when a vendor or product fails validation, which is the one behavioral gap for a tool whose whole job is validation.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and read-only guarantee, then workflow, then safety rule. Slightly run-on with the exclamation-free but long third clause, yet each sentence contributes distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns and it does: one draft per vendor with the exact body to POST to APINV. Combined with the idempotency note and approval gate, an agent has enough to act; only error/partial-failure behavior is left unstated.

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 schema already explains csv, path and company, including the either/or between csv and path and the company-match requirement. The description adds only indirect meaning (the worksheet may have edited Qty/Vendor) and does not clarify formats or precedence beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific transformation (worksheet -> purchase-order drafts) plus the read-only constraint in the first clause. It also implicitly separates its role from mrp_plan (which produces the worksheet) and ebms_write (which posts the drafts), so an agent can place it in the pipeline without ambiguity.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (planner approved BUY rows on the To order tab, possibly editing Qty or Vendor) and names the downstream step (POST drafts via ebms_write). It also states a procedural rule: show the drafts and get a clear yes per purchase order before writing.

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