create_delivery_note

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers excellently. It reveals two confirmed live gotchas: the voucher type must be active or the API falsely reports CREATED:1, and auto-numbering can silently fail with a blank EXCEPTIONS:1. It also explains the workaround (pass voucherNumber explicitly), and that get_ledger_vouchers deliberately excludes inventory-classified vouchers. This is high-value behavioral information far beyond the annotations.

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 long but front-loaded: purpose first, sibling distinctions second, then critical warnings. Each sentence carries evidence-backed context, though there is minor redundancy — the voucherNumber guidance appears both in the tool description and in the schema's voucherNumber property. The structure is logical and the density is justified for a tool with multiple live-confirmed failure modes.

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?

For a 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema and all-false annotations, this description is unusually complete. It covers prerequisites (voucher type active), failure modes (auto-numbering), exclusions (get_ledger_vouchers), and workarounds. The only gap is that it doesn't fully describe the success response shape beyond mentioning CREATED:1 and EXCEPTIONS:1 status markers. That minor omission keeps it from a 5.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the item-line shape shared with create_sales_invoice (including godown auto-fill behavior), and details the voucherNumber parameter's role in recovering from silent auto-numbering failure. It also notes buyer details fields map to the same block as Sales/Credit Note. These enrich the schema without repeating it.

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 opens with a precise definition: 'Create a Delivery Note in TallyPrime — an item-line inventory voucher recording goods dispatched to a customer before or without a full Sales invoice.' It names the verb, resource, and the exact scenario, then distinguishes it from create_sales_invoice and create_rejections_out. An agent can determine exactly what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: for dispatching goods before/without a full sales invoice, with ISINVOICE set to No and no VAT/tax line. It also names alternatives: 'Distinct from create_rejections_out, which has no party/ledger amount at all,' and warns that get_ledger_vouchers will never show this voucher by design. This is clear decision guidance.

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